It's not that poorly written. But regardless: it's clearly a poorly written, sarcastic, negative review. Read it a second time and you'll pick out the sarcasm for sure. The reviewer thought this was a dumb film.

The first notable point is that the model caught that (on its first read, FWIW), even though the original human doing the labeling didn't.

And the second is that the researchers discovered this, and presumably discussed it. And yet when they wrote up the paper they not only dropped the content but denied that the analysis had been done.