Understanding Text

Mix.install([
  {:scidata, "~> 0.1"},
  {:axon, path: "~/projects/axon"},
  {:exla, "~> 0.6"},
  {:nx, "~> 0.6"},
  {:table_rex, "~> 3.1.1"},
  {:kino, "~> 0.7"}
])

Classifying Movie Reviews

Nx.default_backend(EXLA.Backend)

{Nx.BinaryBackend, []}

data = Scidata.IMDBReviews.download()

%{
  review: [
    "The story centers around Barry McKenzie who must go to England if he wishes to claim his inheritance. Being about the grossest Aussie shearer ever to set foot outside this great Nation of ours there is something of a culture clash and much fun and games ensue. The songs of Barry McKenzie(Barry Crocker) are highlights.",
    "'The Adventures Of Barry McKenzie' started life as a satirical comic strip in 'Private Eye', written by Barry Humphries and based on an idea by Peter Cook. McKenzie ( 'Bazza' to his friends ) is a lanky, loud, hat-wearing Australian whose two main interests in life are sex ( despite never having had any ) and Fosters lager. In 1972, he found his way to the big screen for the first of two outings. It must have been tempting for Humphries to cast himself as 'Bazza', but he wisely left the job to Barry Crocker ( later to sing the theme to the television soap opera 'Neighbours'! ). Humphries instead played multiple roles in true Peter Sellers fashion, most notably Bazza's overbearing Aunt 'Edna Everage' ( this was before she became a Dame ).

You know this is not going to be 'The Importance Of Being Ernest' when its censorship classification N.P.A. stands for 'No Poofters Allowed'. Pom-hating Bazza is told by a Sydney solicitor that in order to inherit a share in his father's will he must go to England to absorb British culture. With Aunt Edna in tow, he catches a Quantas flight to Hong Kong, and then on to London. An over-efficient customs officer makes Bazza pay import duties on everything he bought over there, including a suitcase full of 'tubes of Fosters lager'. As he puts it: \"when it comes to fleecing you, the Poms have got the edge on the gyppos!\". A crafty taxi driver ( Bernard Spear ) maximises the fare by taking Bazza and Edna first to Stonehenge, then Scotland. The streets of London are filthy, and their hotel is a hovel run by a seedy landlord ( Spike Milligan ) who makes Bazza put pound notes in the electricity meter every twenty minutes. There is some good news for our hero though; he meets up with other Aussies in Earls Court, and Fosters is on sale in British pubs.

What happens next is a series of comical escapades that take Bazza from starring in his own cigarette commercial, putting curry down his pants in the belief it is some form of aphrodisiac, a bizarre encounter with Dennis Price as an upper-class pervert who loves being spanked while wearing a schoolboy's uniform, a Young Conservative dance in Rickmansworth to a charity rock concert where his song about 'chundering' ( vomiting ) almost makes him an international star, and finally to the B.B.C. T.V. Centre where he pulls his pants down on a live talk-show hosted by the thinking man's crumpet herself, Joan Bakewell. A fire breaks out, and Bazza's friends come to the rescue - downing cans of Fosters, they urinate on the flames en masse.

This is a far cry from Bruce Beresford's later works - 'Breaker Morant' and 'Driving Miss Daisy'. On release, it was savaged by critics for being too 'vulgar'. Well, yes, it is, but it is also great non-P.C. fun. 'Bazza' is a disgusting creation, but his zest for life is unmistakable, you cannot help but like the guy. His various euphemisms for urinating ( 'point Percy at the porcelain' ) and vomiting ( 'the Technicolour yawn' ) have passed into the English language without a lot of people knowing where they came from. Other guest stars include Dick Bentley ( as a detective who chases Bazza everywhere ), Peter Cook, Julie Covington ( later to star in 'Rock Follies' ), and even future arts presenter Russell Davies.

A sequel - the wonderfully-named 'Barry McKenzie Holds His Own - came out two years later. At its premiere, Humphries took the opportunity to blast the critics who had savaged the first film. Good for him.

What must have been of greater concern to him, though, was the release of 'Crocodile Dundee' in 1985. It also featured a lanky, hat-wearing Aussie struggling to come to terms with a foreign culture. And made tonnes more money.

The song on the end credits ( performed by Snacka Fitzgibbon ) is magnificent. You have a love a lyric that includes the line: \"If you want to send your sister in a frenzy, introduce her to Barry McKenzie!\". Time to end this review. I have to go the dunny to shake hands with the unemployed...",
    "This film and it's sequel Barry Mckenzie holds his own, are the two greatest comedies to ever be produced. A great story a young Aussie bloke travels to england to claim his inheritance and meets up with his mates, who are just as loveable and innocent as he is.

It's chock a block full of great, sayings , where else could you find someone who needs a drink so bad that he's as dry as a dead dingoes donger? great characters, top acting, and it's got great sheilas and more Fosters consumption then any other three films put together. Top notch.

And some of the funniest songs you'll ever hear, and it's full of great celebrities. Definitely my two favourite films of all time, I watch them at least once a fortnight.",
    "I love this movie like no other. Another time I will try to explain its virtues to the uninitiated, but for the moment let me quote a few of pieces the remarkable dialogue, which, please remember, is all tongue in cheek. Aussies and Poms will understand, everyone else-well?

(title song lyric)\"he can sink a beer, he can pick a queer, in his latest double-breasted Bondi gear.\"

(another song lyric) \"All pommies are bastards, bastards, or worse, and England is the a**e-hole of the universe.\"

(during a television interview on an \"arty program\"): Mr Mackenzie what artists have impressed you most since you've been in England? (Barry's response)Flamin' bull-artists!

(while chatting up a naive young pom girl): Mr Mackenzie, I suppose you have hordes of Aboriginal servants back in Australia? (Barry's response) Abos? I've never seen an Abo in me life. Mum does most of the solid yacca (ie hard work) round our place.

This is just a taste of the hilarious farce of this bonser Aussie flick. If you can get a copy of it, watch and enjoy.",
    "A hit at the time but now better categorised as an Australian cult film. The humour is broad, unsubtle and, in the final scene where a BBC studio fire is extinguished by urinating on it, crude. Contains just about every cliche about the traditional Australian pilgrimage to 'the old country', and every cliche about those rapacious, stuck up, whinging, Tory Brits. Would be acceptable to the British because of its strong cast of well known actors, and to Australians of that generation, who can 'get' the humour. Americans -- forget it. The language and jokes are in the Australian dialect of English and as such will be unintelligible.",
    "Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second.",
    "With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it.",
    "This movie really kicked some ass. I watched it over and over and it never got boring. Angelina Jolie really kicked some ass in the movie, you should see the movie, you won't be disappointed. And another reason you should see the movie is because the guy from The X-Files is in it, David Duchovny.",
    "I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood.",
    "Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.",
    "David Duchovney creates a role that he was to replicate somewhat in Californication - the troubled talent. And it is a role he plays well.

This thriller starts off at a good speed and carries you through to the end. Timothy Hutton plays a fine villain and Angelina Jolie pouts. The story of a disgraced doctor finding his way into a criminal world is well scripted. Drug addiction and a desire for the sultry Jolie mix a heady cocktail. Unfortunately towards the end the story gets a little weaker and the relationships between villains and the FBI is muddled and rushed as if it was created only to develop the final scene. But, that aside, a movie worth seeing.",
    "This film has a lot of raw potential. The script is sharp, the dialogue is (usually) excellent (though it could stand to lose the cheezy voice-overs), the direction and cinematography is surprisingly quite good, though some of the experimentation just doesn't work. The main problem here is David Duchovny. Once a geek-boy, always a geek-boy; and the sad, simple fact is that he's incapable of playing anything but Fox Mulder. He postures, he tries to be slick, he poses, he tries to be macho. In the end he just tries too hard. He overplays his character, he overspeaks his lines, and he's just outplayed in all ways by Timothy Hutton and Angelina Jolie, who are each in a class above him in terms of acting skill. Timothy Hutton was (as always) really good. There was a spotty moment or two where he over-dramatized his role, but you could tell he was having fun with it. He looked the part, and he became the character both physically and atmospherically. Angelina Jolie was also really good. She didn't have much of a role; in fact, I though she could have used a much stronger one...her character wasn't nearly developed enough, though she did remarkably well with what she had. And the chemistry between her and Hutton was apparent (gee, maybe that's why Uma left him...;) All in all, it was rough around the edges, but a solid effort by a good cast and great supporting roles. If David Duchovny hadn't ripped his role to pieces it would've been *that* much better. 7/10.",
    "I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.

Well directed, well acted and a good story.",
    "David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film",
    "Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie.",
    "Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars.",
    "I was expecting this to be the same kind of schlock as the previous Modesty Blaise movie, which is why I left it unwatched for so long, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Far from being a succession of silly gun battles and car/boat chases, it was an almost thoughtful analysis of how a pretty girl gets to become as hard as nails, with nothing being overstated or over-rationalized.

It's likely that the budgetary constraints actually helped with that: less time and effort was spent on finding ever-stupider ways for stunt men to pretend to die, and more was dedicated to making the movie worth watching. Hell, the biggest gun battle takes place off screen -- and the scene where it is heard is all the better for that background noise, that adds to the suspense -- who's winning? Who's dying?

Alexandra Staden might not be as drop-dead gorgeous as Monica Vitti, but few are, and she certainly has every ounce of class and fire that's needed to make the character work -- and the shape of her face, her hair, and her tall, slender body could have been lifted straight from the comic-strip graphics.

Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau was the perfect choice for a Blaise bad-guy, in that he made the character interesting and enjoyable to watch -- even likable (and I doubt I'd consider taking on many brutal, psychopathic murderers as drinking buddies). I can't think of a single one of Hollywood's \"former waiters\" who could have pulled the role off that well.

Fortunately, Blaise baddies always die, in the end (no spoilers there!) That's a really good thing, because all the girls who would have spent their time swooning over such a disgustingly handsome and interesting hunk can now pragmatically settle for us ordinary Joes.",
    "This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise \"history\". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as \"Creative Consultant\" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty.",
    "For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film.",
    "I was pleased to see that she had black hair! I've been a fan for about 30 years now and have been disgusted at the two earlier attempts to film the stories.

I was pleased that the screenwriters updated the period to include a computer, it didn't spoil it at all. In fact I watched the film twice in one day, a sure sign that it was up to standard. This is what I do with books that I like as well.

I thought all the characters were well depicted and represented the early days of Modesty Blaise extremely well as evinced in both book and comic strip. I would also have to disagree with a comment made by an earlier reviewer about baddies having to be ugly. Has he actually read the books?

I thought this was a very good film and look forward to sequels with anticipation.",
    "I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book \"Modesty Blaise\" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up \"The network\" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English",
    "As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.

As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.

In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.

OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories!",
    "The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV.",
    "While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.",
    "Recap: It's business as usual at Louche's casino in Tanger. The casino is about to close and prepares for a big transaction the next day. The owner Louche and some staff leave for the night, leaving Modesty in charge. Suddenly a troop of armed gangsters storm the casino, shooting wildly. Unknown to Modesty, they have already killed Louche, and are now after the money hidden in the vault. But no one present, and still alive, at the casino knows the code to open the vault. The vault itself is heavily booby trapped with explosives so the assailants can't blow the door as planned. Suddenly Modesty finds herself eye to eye with the gangsters' leader Miklos in a game of roulette with their lives in jeopardy.

Comments: This is a review written with no connection what so ever with other published media about Modesty Blaise, as I have neither seen nor read any of it. The first point I like to make is that this is slightly wrongfully classified. Foremost I thought this was a thriller with a battle of wits between Modesty and Miklos as the main plot. Sure, there are some bursts of action but they are not really an integral or important part of the story.

As already mentioned the main plot and the main suspense-filled scene, is the game between Modesty and Miklos. It's an innovative and intriguing way of revealing the background of a character, and in doing so much of the story takes place outside the casino at a much earlier time. Someone said that it is almost like a pilot for a TV-series, and the feeling is that it might indeed be used as such. But, I felt it was a much better way to introduce a character than many other have done. I was in no way disappointed in the lack of action, instead I enjoyed this game, the history much more than a simple action movie.

I think the two main stars, Alexandra Staden and Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau did very well. Staden especially portrays Modesty very well, and really carries this confident and talented character.

7/10",
    "This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The \"purists\" should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was \"stalling for time.\" I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other \"reviewers\" did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this \"prequel\" is a sign of what's to come!",
    "Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars.",
    "I enjoyed this film. It was a joy to see a version so close to the vision of Peter O'Donnell.

A number of people have disliked the film, but it has to be seen in context of the origin story that it is. The film uses flashback to show the young Modesty and the events that shaped her into the woman that she became. Before the Network. Before Willie Garvin.

The pace is a trifle slow, and for my taste not enough tension is developed in the present day scenes. However this is acceptable just to get such a faithful version.

If you like Modesty Blaise, you will enjoy it even with its faults, if you just want an action flick with car chases - forget it.

It has the feeling of being the first of a franchise, but as I have never seen it promoted anywhere, I suspect there will be no more to follow. Sadly.",
    "The best Modesty Blaise movie I have seen so far. It's like a good pilot for a TV-series. I even think it's a little bit \"cult\", like with a lite touch of Quentin Tarantino's magic, or something. They have caught a great deal of Modesty's character, but I admit missing Willy Garwin a bit. Even if i have read many comics and book by Peter O'donnell I'm not disappointed of this film, quite the opposite. Positive surprised of this story about Modesty and her childhood. I did not put my expectations so high, because of the bad movie from 1966. So I may have overrate this movie just a little. But if you like the comics and other storys about Modesty Blaise, you should definitely see this one! can't wait for a follow-up...",
    "I've seen this movie and I must say I'm very impressed. There are not much movies I like, but I do like this one. You should see this movie by yourself and comment it,because this is one of my most favorite movie. I fancy to see this again. Action fused with a fantastic story. Very impressing. I like Modesty's character. Actually she's very mystic and mysterious (I DO like that^^). The bad boy is pretty too. Well, actually this whole movie is rare in 'movieworld'. I considered about the vote of this movie, I thought this is should be a very popular movie. I guess wrong. It was ME who was very impressed about this movie, and I hope I'm not the only one who takes only the cost to watch this one. See and vote.",
    "Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.",
    "There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.

Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he \"got\" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was \"My Name is Modesty,\" a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.

The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her \"origin.\" I realize the words \"Direct-to-Video\" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.",
    "First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS! 

Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)

She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.

Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends. 

What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.

Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)

The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud! 

My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!

Watch it, you won't be disappointed!",
    "Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the \"real\" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story.",
    "Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a \"Creative Consultant.\" The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!",
    "Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.

I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.

Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.

Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.

The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.

I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made.",
    "If you are already a fan of Peter O'Donnell's wonderful Modesty Blaise books from the sixties, you will really enjoy this movie. If you have ever seen the 1966 \"Modesty Blaise\" film, forget it! That was camp. This is the real Modesty Blaise. The story and character are both true to the Modesty that fans of the books know and love. It's a long way from Joe Losey's 1966 travesty, and it takes our Modesty quite seriously. Alexandra Staden is quite good and believable in the part, and yes, we do get to see her kick butt. chuckle

This is likely meant to be the first movie of a series and as such it serves to introduce Modesty, her childhood and her days with Lob.

Since Peter O'Donnell was the creative consultant on the movie, everything really rings true. Even the story O'Donnell told of how he conceived the character is just as he told it. Having read all the books, I enjoyed the movie even more for that.

Now that Miramax has kept their option on the property by having Quentin Tarrentino make this film, I do hope to see more of the Modesty stories asap. Especially as the wonderful character of Willie Garvin makes Modesty's character really come alive. To that end, I really hope the film does well in Europe. I have no idea if Miramax intends to ever distribute the DVD in the USA. I suspect it might not do that well in the USA in general distribution. I wonder how Miramax decides where and how to distribute it's films.

In the story, Modesty is in her early 20's, working at Louche's casino in Tangier. The flashback sequences are artfully done and take Modesty from about 9 years old, through her teens up to her current age in the movie - about 21-22, I'd guess. I really don't think there's a \"perfect actress\" for Modesty. For many of us Modesty fans, she's much too powerful a presence in our imaginations already. Alexandra Staden is credible. She is very slim, graceful and poised. She has lots of closeups. She has a great face - one that sticks in your mind well after the movie is over. According to O' Donnell's illustrator, Romero, Modesty has rather a fuller figure than Staden, but I'm willing to overlook that. If Staden continues in the role, I think she will mature into it - just as Modesty grows more powerful and skilled as she gets older. Staden already conveys Modesty's humor and absolute assurance very well. Go ahead and rent this movie, it's not like anything else you've seen and even though it was directed by Scott Spiegel, it is full of Tarrentino touches, great camera moves, lighting and well-done action sequences.",
    "Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out \"stop wasting my time!\" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.",
    "magellan33 said: \"You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member.\"

I assume, then, that you never heard of \"Topper\".

Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.

This was the kind of program that had \"Not Gonna Make It\" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp.",
    "I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.",
    "This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see.",
    <<83, 104, 111, 114, 116, 32, 115, ...>>,
    <<85, 116, 116, 101, 114, 108, ...>>,
    "This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see.",
    <<70, 97, 114, 101, ...>>,
    "A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.

Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.

This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.

ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.

One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.

Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.

That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.

Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.

FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch! 

Highly recommended.",
    "Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100.",
    <<78, ...>>,
    "Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, \"Monkey Grip\" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former \"Play School\" and \"Better Homes & Gardens\" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.

10/10",
    ...
  ],
  sentiment: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
   1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...]
}

{train_data, test_data} =
  data.review
  |> Enum.zip(data.sentiment)
  |> Enum.shuffle()
  |> Enum.split(23_000)

{[
   {"The performances were superb, the costumes delivered a unique feeling for the period and being a Victorian Living Historian, I was impressed with the accuracy of weaponry and attention to detail.

I wouldn't say you need any knowledge of the Kelly saga to stay with the flow of this movie but to comprehend the happenings and attitudes of the time you will require a bit of basic historical knowledge. Do not expect, as some rather silly people do, any of the characters to have the Auzzie accent as we know it, it was, at that time, a country during infancy.

OK, the story had some elements of fiction but these are required for a wider following of the film. Gregor Jordan said in the extra feature on the DVD that he wanted his movie to 'inspire an interest', and that is exactly what happened with me so this movie gets the thumbs up here.

See it and you WILL NOT be sorry",
    1},
   {"I like bad movies. I like to rent bad movies with my friends and rip on them for their duration. Then there are abhorrent movies like this. Redline is not just a bad movie, but a telling sign that maybe the American movie industry should please, for the sake of the viewer, at least proofread scripts before funding a movie.

If a stereotype took a crap, this movie would spawn from that. The storyline is unbearable, and the acting all around is laughable. Nadia Bjorlin and Eddie Griffin have, perhaps, the worst screen chemistry I've seen in a good while, and even individually they should be isolated from humanity and beaten with a bag of oranges until they change their profession to street merchants (about the only thing they can legitimately qualify for). Furthermore, how Angus Macfadyen got convinced to do this movie is so far beyond me that I can't even think of an analogy. I am a loyal fan of his, but this has made me question him.

To sum it up. Several people want revenge for different reasons (and if you care enough to know what they are, you're a bigger person than me), so much so that it turns to violence (I guess). The movie is like Ouroboros, the snake that swallows its own tail, in that it's an endless cycle of confusion and dialogue not fit for human ears. This movie is essentially one big car commercial for the first half, and an indecipherable action movie for the rest, it should be avoided at any and all costs.

I wish I could find one positive aspect to this movie, and I think it lies in the fact that eventually the credits do roll.

P.S. Nadia Bjorlin, if that was YOU singing those two songs in this movie, then you are a hack, and I hope old age ravages you.

P.S.S. If you DO rent this movie looking for a laughable experience, listen for the lyrics to Nadia Bjorlin's awesome songs.",
    0},
   {"I knew about this as a similar programme as Jackass, and I saw one or two episodes on Freeview, and it is the same, only more extreme. Basically three Welsh guys, and one mad British bloke were brought together by love of skateboarding, and a complete disregard/masochistic pleasure to harm themselves and their health and safety. They have had puking, eating pubes-covered pizza, jumping in stinging nettles, naked paint balling, jokes on the smaller guy while heavily sleeping/snoring, stunts in a work place, e.g. army, cowboys, and many more insane stunts that cause bruises, bumps, blood and vomit, maybe not just for themselves. Starring Matthew Pritchard who does pretty much anything, Lee Dainton also up for just about anything, Dan Joyce (the British one) who hardly does much physical stuff and has a OTT laugh, and Pancho (Mike Locke) who does a lot, but is more popular for being short, fat and lazy. It was number something on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!",
    1},
   {"Yes this a B- grade horror. But at least the producers, directors, and cast does not pretend this flick is manna from heaven. The plot is corny, a psychotic serial killer on his way to execution is splashed with genetic acid turning him into a snow man. The snowman a.k.a. Jack Frost then goes on a murdering rampage to find the small town sheriff that finally arrested him. With a limited budget the crew had to make do with limited special effects, most of the money appears to spent on the snowman's costume. Particullary difficult shots are managed by cartoons or pan away shots (shots where the camera moves away to disguise the details). 

 This is no kid's movie and should not be confused with Disney movie of the same title. If you do not let your children watch pg-13 movies alone than parents should not let their kids watch this movie. This movie has two claims to fame. 1. The beatiful Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie)did her first major movie role. The scene where Jack Frost attacks Shannon Elizabeth is worth watching a few times. 2. This movie has the worst snowman joke ever. The joke is so bad that the directors credit the joke teller in the credit list.",
    1},
   {"Textbook example of an underestimated movie.

Although one can watch this movie over and over again and laugh every single time and still see something new in it, it's still regarded as just another funny picture. And although the movie has inspired many and added it's quotes and images to the pyche of all it's viewers, Moon Over Parador still hasn't received the acclaim it should. Even the brilliant cast with Academy Award winner Richard Dreyfuss and Raul Julia, to mention one, is not able to change this perception.

But after watching Raul Julia as Roberto Strausmann make Richard Dreyfus an offer he can't refuse in a meatlocker by reading him a good review of a part that he once played one can only come to one conclusion: this stuff is timeless! In fifty years we will have the proof.",
    1},
   {"Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.

OK.

Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.

And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.

Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.

What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?",
    0},
   {"They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. 

So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel \"The True History of the Kelly Gang\" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.

Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.",
    0},
   {"This movie is the next segment in the pokemon movies which supplies everything on hopes and dreams of a pokemon warrior named Ash Ketchim and his friends. they go out and they look battle and run into new pokemon and take on new adventures with Pikachu and other pokemon favorites. This adventure takes on with a new pokemon called Celebi a time pokemon. Go join ash Brock and Misty to find all sorts of new things!",
    1},
   {"SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it. 

First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!

Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?

Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that? 

Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.",
    0},
   {"Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.

Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who \"took one\" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).

As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? 

The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? 

And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?

There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the \"What the...?\" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.",
    0},
   {"I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one.",
    1},
   {"This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in \"New Nightmare\")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that \"Pet Sematary\" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!",
    1},
   {"I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.

But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.

It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the \"jokes\" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.

I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.",
    0},
   {"Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think......",
    1},
   {"Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. 

At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. \"Warning! Major plot twist ahead!\" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. 

\"Just Cause\" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like \"Intruder in the Dust\" and \"To Kill a Mockingbird\"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's \"Music Box\", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of \"Cape Fear\", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of \"Cape Fear\", made four years before \"Just Cause\". 

(There is a postscript. Just as \"Just Cause\" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle \"High Crimes\"). 

The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and \"Just Cause\" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, \"The Rock\", the following year). 

There is another problem with \"Just Cause\". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal \"issue\" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The " <> ...,
    0},
   {"I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!",
    1},
   {"Whilst it is universally acknowledged that Fearful Symmetry was heavily influenced by the Kolchak episode They Have Been, They Are, They Will Be, whether this makes it a rip-off or a homage is an altogether more controversial point. As a huge fan of both series I subscribe to the latter belief, although the less charitable may not do. James Whitmore was brave to take on the task of directing such a difficult episode, invisible elephants and gorilla suits sounds like a recipe for disaster, but he pulls it off with style, the teaser being an absolute gem. Lance Guest does a great job of making a credible character out of Kyle Lang and Jack Rader seethes with menace as Ed Meecham. Forget Fearful Symmetry's dubious originality and just enjoy it as a deeply satisfying X File.",
    1},
   {"When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.

To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.

Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, \"Before the Laughter\" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in \"Before the Laughter\" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.",
    0},
   {"The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.

This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the \"romance\"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.

While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way.",
    0},
   {"After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.",
    0},
   {"There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.

As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?

Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.

I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with \"Sailor Who Fell from Grace\" and \"Manos\" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.

I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.",
    0},
   {"the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.

It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense...",
    1},
   {"I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.

This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those \"festival films\" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it \"different\", therefore good.

Bad film-making is not \"different\", it's just bad film-making.",
    0},
   {"Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones.",
    1},
   {"The first (and only) time I saw \"Shades\" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled \"Shades\".

As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.

We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10.",
    0},
   {"

This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.

If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.",
    0},
   {"Why else would he do this to me?

Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... \"good\" Dean Cain is.

Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.

To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?

How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?

Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.

Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.

That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...

Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!

fade to black

my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.

But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.

",
    0},
   {"I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.

I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.",
    0},
   {"This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.

Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.

Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.

Not recommended.",
    0},
   {"I have never seen one of these SciFi originals before, this was the first. I think it only fair to judge the acting, direction/production, set design and even the CGI effects on the other SciFi movies. To compare it to your typical Hollywood production is unfair. I will say, however, that overall Aztec Rex was not exactly reminiscent of Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, Wrath of God.

I will begin by noting that, yes, I do recognize the fact that this movie has more to do with culture-clash than it does with dinosaurs. Despite this being a made-for-TV sci-fi movie, there is some underlying context to the story which I shall examine. The symbolic elements included are evident enough.

Consequently, as a student of history, theology, mythology and film: I found the dialogue outrageous and the plot themes to be somewhat insulting. I am not asking for any mea culpas on behalf of the producers - as I said before the movie is what it is. But what concerns me is that much of the younger demographic for this movie probably rely on television to provide them their lessons when it comes to history and cultural diversity.

The main problem manifests itself most visibly with the character Ayacoatl (not a commentary on Dichen Lachman's performance, but simply how her character was written, although, I'll say she has some work to do before she receives any Emmy nods). It is through her character that the Spanish Europeans actions are justified. Her function in the film as the love interest of Rios affirms that the European way is the right way, simply because they are European. There is really no other reason given. It's really just left to the assumption that the viewer is meant to associate themselves with the Europeans over the Aztec because their dress, language, ideology, etc is more familiar to them than the Aztec - so therefore the Aztec are portrayed as adversarial and 'backwards.' And it's not simply that the viewer is left with that assumption due to ethnocentric perception on the viewers part, but it really seems like the story is trying to convince the viewer - As if the Aztec were not capable of coming up with a plan - if not a better one - to lure a dinosaur to its death on a bed of punji sticks.

In fairness, there is a subgroup of the Spanish who are portrayed as looting temples and intent on simply abusing the native MesoAmericans. There is also a scene where we have the Christian holy man noting the achievements of the Aztec: \"They have agriculture, medicine, calendar, etc.\" - But in the end it is still the Aztec warrior who is portrayed as the main antagonist of the movie, even over the 'thunder lizards' (more on that later). He his portrayed as treacherous, duplicitous and attempts to dispatch the romantic European Spaniard by tricking him into consuming hallucinogenic mind altering mushrooms - an important spiritual component to certain aspects and religions of the native Meso & North Americans (again, more on this later) so that he can keep the female he feels belongs to him and away from the Spaniard. 

Now in analyzing the true nature of the story (leaving the obvious Christian vs. Pagan themes off of the table) from a symbolic standpoint - a viewer can easily take these so-called thunder lizards to be representatives of the MesoAmerican ideology/theology, which in this movie is portrayed as being one intent on: bloodthirstiness, mercilessness, cruelness, wicked, maybe even evil? In opposition, we have this group of Christian wanderers, led by a young Hernando Cortes who are portrayed as naive, yet overall noble, lambs caught up in the dark heathen world of the Aztec. Also, the name of the film is Aztec Rex, leading one to believe that it is about dinosaurs out to eat people. However, what Aztec Rex translates to is Aztec King, a the head of the Aztec state, or in this instance 'state-of-being.' (Hence, why the title of the film was changed). And so who in fact do we see as the new Aztec king at the end? It's the remaining Spaniard, Rios. Aztec Rex is in refe" <> ...,
    0},
   {"Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.",
    0},
   {"This is a weird movie about an archaeologist studying the culture of the ancient Hohokam Indians. She takes a (really fake looking) mummy out of a burial cave and brings it home to study it. Well, pretty soon she starts acting weird and talking to this mummy. And shortly thereafter her son becomes possessed by the spirit of the mummy. Even stranger events take place as the spirit then tries to destroy the woman's family. This is actually REALLY BORING, overall, and it will make you fall asleep the first couple of times you try to watch it. But if you keep at it, you may just make it to the end. 

Ahah! What is the secret of the mummy? Is the mummy's spirit angry that it has been removed from the cave? You may not be able to ascertain what the spirit's motivation is, but if you like spooky shenanigans on a low-budget (and 70's hairstyles!) this will have a certain comforting appeal.

The way I have described the story is much clearer than the jumbled, boring way the film lays the story out. Can a boring movie really be fascinating? Well...somehow this one achieves that. Maybe this is a good movie at heart but executed in a rather awkward way. I don't know. What I do know is that I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite its dullness.

Fans of \"Spider Baby\" will be interested to know that a couple of music cues from that film are used in this one (including an instrumental version of the theme song).

Featuring one frightening and fairly well-done sequence showing possessed boulders and rocks rolling around by themselves and eventually attacking some people in a camper. Other scenes in the movie are merely spooky or quirky; but this one scene is actually pretty scary.

See this! It's weird and it's worth your time. You might even want one on your shelf.",
    1},
   {"The premise of this movie is revealed on the DVD box. A textile worker develops a miracle fabric that doesn't degrade. But the movie fails to get on with it. Instead it pads for 45 minutes, noodling around a preamble before he makes the big discovery. Since audiences don't benefit much from seeing a whiz kid figuring things out, it's a strange choice: the movie has successfully been prevented from engaging any topic. Once the fabric is discovered, the movie too rapidly establishes that both industry bigwigs, and blue-collar co-workers want the invention squelched, leaving the movie with just two flimsy movements; inventing the chemical, and running from oppressors.

I can't understand why anyone would describe this as comedy. The tone isn't funny or comical. It's more like serious social criticism of the day: that capitalism warps both supply chains and production. Which in turn prevents innovation from reaching and improving the world. Yes, that's probably true, but without some toying with an attitude towards that fact, the movie is simply an earnest argument. You'll need an extremely broad definition of comedy to find any here.

This is more like a British Meet John Doe (Meet Nigel Doe ?).",
    0},
   {"Barman just wanted to make a movie because he wanted to. Just as simple as that, and he succeeded. Not only in his goal, but also in making a wonderful movie, especially visually. He knows how to use pans, slow-motion sequences, tracking shots, crane shots, etc. in a beautiful, smooth way. This gives the movie a very relaxing feel to it.

The story is about the lives of 8 very different characters who have nothing in common except one thing: a party that they all attend to, which also is the turnpoint of this movie. The beauty of this picture lies not in the question how the characters have effect on eachother (in comparance with a similar, of course better movie like Magnolia). I simply don't think that that was Barman's idea. The beauty lies in the different details of experiences that people go through which makes or breaks their lives. Barman is very successful in telling those little stories that describe little experiences. He knows people..... and Antwerp.

The soundtrack of the movie is also excellent, but not a surprise as we know that Barman is also a very succesful songwriter and musician with his band dEUS. The music is sometimes hot and at the same time relaxing which contributes to the sunny, smooth feel of the movie. Other times we hear funky pop/rock-melodies which give some scenes the strength that they need.

There's only one flaw, and that's the last half an hour. Was it the runtime, which was breaking me up? Or weren't the last scenes that fresh and accurate than the scenes until then? I can't figure it out...

All in all a beautiful sunny movie which lifts the Belgian cinema up.

8 out of 10!

(It's the breeze that flows through a girl's hair on a sunny afternoon making her even more beautiful; it's the fresh breeze that makes you relax when it passes you at a crowded party when someone opens the door; it's the breeze that carries the perfume from that beautiful girl sitting next to you in the park who you just met a week ago; it's the breeze.....)

",
    1},
   {"Another too bad the lowest they can go here is one. Otherwise this would get an easy zero. Truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact were Peckenpah's name not on the thing I would never have guessed he did it. Actually one of the people in San Francisco I know was on the set a lot and from nearly sunup on he says that Sam was just plain snockered. It shows in spades. The laughing bit at the early part of the film is the ONLY thing in this entire mess worth a second look. Not even Gig Young is watchable. This is a true test of masochism. Had I been forced into the confines of a theatre to see it I would have jumped up screaming. And now I truly feel guilty having watched it all from the confines of a very comfortable couch that was just too nice to leave. What a mess, it seemed less written than made up as they went along. It's not only a bomb but a bmob spelled backwards. Yikes!!!!!",
    0},
   {"It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then \"I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!\" I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4.",
    0},
   {"God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called \"Cartoons\"!

Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons! 

They are not even trying anymore! 

Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.",
    0},
   {"Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.",
    0},
   {"Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.

Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious \"thing\" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that!",
    0},
   {"This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. \"Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?\" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.

Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in \"his\" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was \"torn\". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.

And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.

SUPERMAN \"ONE\" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just \"doing a job\" when he's saving people.

There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.

SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I \"thought\" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.

There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.

SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she \"prefers\" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.

He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.

It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just \"access\" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missil" <> ...,
    0},
   {"Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....",
    1},
   {"I found this film to be the usual French slap in America's face. The camera, all too often, focuses on fat people, on sloppy homes and on tacky rural areas. While the narration seems to sympathize with and admire the small town folks who are introduced to the viewer, the cinematography exploits and demeans them. There were, undoubtedly, thin people to be seen in Glencoe and neat, organized homes, but Malle chose to show us the worst of what was there to be seen. 

I can only hope that some American filmmakers will go to France to reveal to the American public its worst elements. I can assure you, as a frequent visitor to France, that all is not well there. Foreign immigrants are not readily assimilated, thus creating severe social inequities. But Americans are not eager to unmask the French for their prejudice toward their own compatriots and their envy toward the U.S., so we're not likely to see films on the subject.",
    1},
   {"Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.

The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.

This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.

Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.

The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works.",
    1},
   {"I had high expectations following \"My Beautiful Laundrette\", \"Bend it like Beckham\" and (less so) \"East is East\". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.

Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a \"those were the days\" soundtrack, and lots of \"issues\" in an attempt to be worthy.

I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.

Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual \"BBC comedy\" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. \"Bend it like Beckham\" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.

In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.

",
    0},
   {"There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.",
    0},
   {"David Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.

Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.

Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of \"Are they dead, if not who is dead\" movies recently.",
    1},
   {"Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read \"cameo\") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight (\"Newman!\"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of \"Mork and Mindy\" starring Tim Allen.........................................................",
    0},
   {"Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of \"The Rage\" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.",
    ...},
   {...},
   ...
 ],
 [
   {"I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.",
    0},
   {"I'll give credit where credit is due, and say that Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as a hard-drinking actress who does what she wants. She's brash, sassy, hard-edged, and very sexy; she is much better than this film deserves.

But that is IT. This dull suspense film is a fragmented mess, attempting at once to be a stalker thriller, a murder thriller, a tale of loyalty and betrayal, and a steamy erotic thriller. The film, my friends, isn't thrilling in the slightest.

For instance, who thought of casting C. Thomas Howell as a desirable leading man? He is not ugly, but for crying out loud, it looks as though Fiorentino's tough-cookie goddess is getting it on with a kindergarten teacher. Howell has neither the authority or screen presence to fill the leading man role.

The script is by far the worst aspect of the film. There is no tension as Fiorentino's character gets eerie phone calls, there is no mystery concerning her guilt in the murders that are the focus of the film, there is no sense of liberation as Fiorentino gets wimpy Howell to lose his inhibitions.

Look for interesting but poorly-done cameos by Adam Ant and Issac Hayes, and one really, really good sex scene between Howell and Fiorentino. Besides that, my first impulse would be to put this sorry piece of trash down and go rent something else.",
    0},
   {"\"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat\" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell(\"The Evil Dead\",\"Intruder\")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like \"Cannibal Holocaust\" or \"Last House on the Left\".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time.",
    0},
   {"Many of the reviewers have made it a point to note that Pinjar is unlike the run of the mill films produced in Bollywood. While this is true, Bollywood films in general are geared to a specific audience and should be appreciated for accomplishing their aims in this regard.

However,Pinjar is an excellent film for those seeking a change from the normal equation based Bollywood film. Set during the time of Partition between India and Pakistan, Pinjar focuses on a Punjabi girl who becomes the victim of societal and cultural attitudes toward the treatment of women in her time. Paro, the protagonist, is forced to choose between a life with a man who has abducted her and the fleeting hope of a life with her family back in Indian ruled Punjab. More than an issue of Hindus and Muslims, Pinjar addresses and defines a woman's role as a daughter, as a wife, and as a mother in India and Pakistan in 1947. Unlike typical Bollywood films which are escapist in nature, Pinjar is a film that makes its audience contemplate these issues during and after the film.",
    1},
   {"I was first introduced to \"Eddie\" by friends from \"across-the-pond\" who know I like intelligent humor. I prefer comedians who can be thought provoking while entertaining such as George Carlin and Dennis Miller. In 'Dress to Kill' Eddie provides the same type of social observation humor that stimulates your thoughts on a subject all the while causing your side to split at the same time. There is a wide range of subjects in this stand-up and they are simply hysterical. The piece on how to decide on Englebert's stage name will leave you in stitches!

Thanks Andrew and Catherine! ... and \"Do you have a Flag?\"",
    1},
   {"This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, \"Hollywood North\" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, \"Flight to Bogota\" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, \"Hollywood North\" is a great place to start.",
    1},
   {"I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: \"I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!\" \"Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film.\" \"This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it.\" So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.

Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.

The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say \"yes\" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.

I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.

The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into \"I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before.\" Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.

I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of \"People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span.\" I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason.",
    0},
   {"Another detailed work on the subject by Dr Dwivedi takes us back in time to pre-partioned Panjab. Dr Dwivedi chose a difficult subject for his movie debut. He has worked on all meticulous details to bring the story to life. The treatment of the subject is very delicate.

Even though we have not been to the region during that time, the sets and costumes look real. Unlike most movies made on partition, this one focuses not on the gory details of violence to attract audience, but on its after-effects. The characters come to life. Priyanshu Chatterjee has given an impressive performance. Manoj Bajpai has acted his heart out showing the plight of a guilt-ridden man. The rest of the cast has done a good job too.",
    1},
   {"I'm watching this on the Sci-Fi channel right now. It's so horrible I can't stop watching it! I'm a Videographer and this movie makes me sad. I feel bad for anyone associated with this movie. Some of the camera work is good. Most is very questionable. There are a few decent actors in the flick. Too bad they're surrounded by what must have been the director's relatives. That's the only way they could have been qualified to be in a movie! Music was a little better than the acting. If you get around to watching this I hope it's because there was absolutely NO other option! The sequel (yes sequel) is coming on now....I think I'll skip it! Jason",
    0},
   {"I have to say that Higher Learning is one of the top 3 movies I have ever watched. It has a brilliant cast, and an equally brilliant director. Singleton shows how life in University can be. There are 3 main story lines, the skinheads, the African-Americans, and the homosexuals. I was intrigued by all of the stories, but the one that got to me the most was the storyline about Kristen, battling her feelings towards another girl. The end was great. After seeing the movie 25 times plus, I still cry. I would have given this movie an 11, but I have to settlefor 10/10.",
    1},
   {"The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot \"The Cage.\" The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).

The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.

In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier \"The Enemy Within\" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses.",
    1},
   {"I cherish each and every frame of this beautiful movie. It is about regular people, people we all know, who suffer a little in their life and have some baggage to carry around. Just like all of us. Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris and Kathy Baker breathe life into their portrayals and are all excellent, but Harris is especially heartbreaking and therefore very real. You would swear he really is a trucker who drinks so he won't have to feel anything. Baker as his put-upon sister also has some delicate moments - when DeNiro gives her flowers in one scene, it seems like she was never given flowers before and probably wasn't. Very worthwhile.",
    1},
   {"Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though \"You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can.\" So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.",
    0},
   {"no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT!",
    0},
   {"I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!

Final Query:

Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.

DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!

Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.",
    0},
   {"I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, \"problems\" develop.

It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947",
    1},
   {"The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.

Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for \"dream episodes\" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.

James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.

Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.

The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.

Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is s" <> ...,
    1},
   {"When I watched this film the first time, it was a taped copy and the title was/is Caged Terror. I still own the tape, and I confess, I've watched it more than once from beginning to end! The film is extremely low budget and the dialogue is often unintentionally amusing! I have gotten a few of my friends to watch this and we've had some great laughs from the terrible script. The film concerns a couple, (remember this is like early 70's so they are just too hip man!) who go on a week-end camping trip in what I believe was supposed to be upstate NY. They have some hilarious dialogue after catching and eating a fish and the girl bemoans the death of the fish and that they ate it! The guy comes back with something goofy about how they ate the fish and now it was a part of them, and he goes; \"And that's beautiful man!\" Heavy man, really heavy! LOL! Anyway, along come a couple of Vietnam vets, one of who plays the flute, I believe. (At any rate they are musical fellows!) The guys are clearly attracted to the girl and when the couple prove unfriendly, they end up terrorizing them during the night. The guy ends up caged in a chicken coop, and has to watch his girl friend being ravished by the two guys. Actually, by the end of the night, she seems to be pretty into it, and when morning comes, the guys leave and the girl and guy are free to leave. Supposedly the guy has learned a lesson about how to treat people, and the girl has a smile on her face! :) Anyway, I would recommend this film highly to anyone looking for a damn good laugh! It never fails to amuse me anyway! If I could find this on DVD and replace my old tape copy, I'd actually buy it again, it's classic camp! You gotta love this stuff!",
    1},
   {"This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed \"dramatic\" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place. 

Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the \"brilliant\" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous \"kindness\".

I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?

It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in \"Eight-Legged Freaks\" and she was okay in \"Anaconda\". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the \"fully monty\" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming. 

Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film. 

I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of \"The Hitchhiker\", then I might advise watching this.

And Kari, please start acting in some better films!",
    0},
   {"but I want to say I cannot agree more with Moira.

What a wonderful film.

I was thinking about it just this morning, wanting to give advice to some dopey sod who'd lost money on his debit card through fraud, and wanted to say 'Keep thy money in thine pocket' and realised I was talking like James Mason.

Even tho he didn't say those words, I still think he would! I've never forgotten 'Are ye carrying?' in his reconciliation with his son, Hywel Bennet: 'Always have money in thine pocket!' Good advice.

Not enough kids have fathers with such unforgiving but well-meant attitudes any more. Or any father at all.

It would be a good thing for us to reinstate 'thee', 'thy' and 'thine' in our language to show we care. It is only the same as 'tutoyer' in French or 'du' in German.

Addendum: I just realised that a lot of my remarks were about James Mason in The Family Way!

I think it's because I mixed up Susan George with Hayley Mills. Well, easy mistake.

I stand by the comments tho'.

And Spring and Port Wine is so very similar to The Family Way.

When you took a girlfriend to the pictures in those days, you really had something to say and talk about afterwards, something that affected your knowledge of the world and your personal development.

Theatrical experiences are almost real, and they are important in helping young people to grow up.

It doesn't happen now, I think, that teenagers can just go to the pics like we did.",
    1},
   {<<65, 115, 32, 97, 32, 104, 111, 114, 114, 111, 114, 45, 109, 111, 118, 105, 101, 32, 102, 97,
      110, 32, 73, 32, 116, 114, ...>>, 0},
   {"Awful! Absolutely awful! No plot, no point, no end. It looks like the director turned the camera on and then the whole crew went to lunch. Every day. I'm trying to GIVE this video away but no one will take it. I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because I like Benigni. Roger, I'm going to have to say thumbs down on this one.

",
    0},
   {<<83, 112, 111, 105, 108, 101, 114, 32, 97, 108, 101, 114, 116, 32, 194, 150, 32, 97, 108, 116,
      104, 111, 117, 103, ...>>, 0},
   {"OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!

The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of \"Jurassic Park\" meets \"Reign of Fire\"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI.... 

I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.",
    0},
   {<<67, 111, 108, 108, 101, 103, 101, 115, 44, 32, 72, 105, 103, 104, 32, 83, 99, 104, 111, 111,
      108, 115, ...>>, 0},
   {"If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says \"God you're a horny bastard\", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else.",
    0},
   {"This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.",
    0},
   {"The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.

The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! 

And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.

It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.

From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).

The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.

So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!

Final rating: 4/10",
    0},
   {"This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.",
    0},
   {"This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill \"wonder of the human body\" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.",
    0},
   {"....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.",
    0},
   {"Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic \"Citizen Kane\". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In \"Citizen Kane\" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately!",
    1},
   {"Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!

Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-)",
    1},
   {"The movie takes place in a little Swedish town where everybody knows each other. Here Mia visits her parent for the birthday of her father, a which occasionally always have some kind of tragedy, the question is just what will it be this year, and you will be surprised... It is an extremely well composed movie, with a story which has a perfect balance of humor and seriousness, which is rarely seen. You get happy, you get hurt, and basically everything in between. Finally you can't help falling in love with Mia(if you are a boy I guess(the main actress)) She is an extremely well chosen actress, as a lot of the other actors/actresses.

Enjoy",
    1},
   {"Extremely well-conceived - part whatever happened to, part behind the scenes revisitation, part reunion film - all done in the same campy style that made the original series so much fun. I only wish this had been done 10 years ago to include more guest villains who have passed on.",
    1},
   {"Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this \"documentary\" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a \"Modern Cannibal Tale.\" I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.

Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had \"a small piece.\" That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie \"The Life Of A True Don Juan\" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played \"just the tip.\" Unbelievable.

The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.

Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.

The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because \"Keep The River To" <> ...,
    0},
   {"San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking \"oh, I've been there,\" you will be thinking \"how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?\" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not \"groovy\" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better! 

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.",
    0},
   {"The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.

Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.

Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a \"50% loss in revenue\" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So \"just turning it off\" would not be a very good idea.

This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.",
    0},
   {"This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.",
    0},
   {"So terrific, so good. I have never seen a man be more funny than Eddie Murphy. In this stand-up-comedy you will see a lot of imitations more done by anyone!

If you have seen Raw (1987) you will have to see Delirious. It's so funny! It's so professional!",
    1},
   {"This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.

The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.

I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.

For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.

Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?",
    0},
   {"I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.

This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.",
    0},
   {"I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie \"comes together\" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.",
    0},
   {"A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun!",
    0},
   {"This version of Anna Christie is in German. Greta Garbo again plays Anna Christie, but all of the other characters have different actors from the English version. Both were filmed back to back because Garbo had such a following in Germany. Garbo herself supposedly favored her Anna Christie in this version over the English version. It's a good tale and a must-see for Garbo fans.",
    1},
   {"Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.",
    0},
   {"Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.

The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!

The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?

The acting is superb.

The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.

I have had more fun doing the laundry.",
    ...},
   {...},
   ...
 ]}

review = "I didn't like this movie. It was so bad; nobody should ever watch it."
review |> String.downcase() |> String.replace(~r/[\p{P}\p{S}]/, "")

"i didnt like this movie it was so bad nobody should ever watch it"

frequencies =
  Enum.reduce(train_data, %{}, fn {review, _}, tokens ->
    review
    |> String.downcase()
    |> String.replace(~r/[\p{P}\p{S}]/, "")
    |> String.split()
    |> Enum.reduce(tokens, &Map.update(&2, &1, 1, fn x -> x + 1 end))
  end)

%{
  "diplomaswho" => 1,
  "egyptologists" => 1,
  "characther" => 1,
  "nearlyempty" => 1,
  "blobs" => 4,
  "doubletwist" => 1,
  "thingshe" => 1,
  "loleralacartelort7890" => 1,
  "placebo" => 1,
  "betterif" => 1,
  "smarttalk" => 1,
  "sorcererin" => 1,
  "celies" => 6,
  "tenancier" => 1,
  "ladies" => 264,
  "cgibr" => 1,
  "cormansathol" => 1,
  "reallife" => 118,
  "unserious" => 3,
  "movieclips" => 1,
  "callbox" => 1,
  "kayakumiak" => 1,
  "camerabut" => 1,
  "misarrangements" => 1,
  "ramus" => 4,
  "carface" => 29,
  "smolley" => 1,
  "feverishly" => 3,
  "stayathome" => 3,
  "bhopali" => 1,
  "jorian" => 1,
  "jee" => 2,
  "riffen" => 2,
  "maninred" => 1,
  "precipitate" => 1,
  "underlit" => 2,
  "isca" => 1,
  "cohesively" => 2,
  "unheated" => 1,
  "privatemichael" => 1,
  "undo" => 4,
  "subtextual" => 1,
  "bulworth" => 1,
  "noblemen" => 2,
  "garberina" => 2,
  "breathtakingly" => 19,
  "sprit" => 2,
  "agendawhich" => 1,
  "approx" => 7,
  "yearsincluding" => 1,
  ...
}

num_tokens = 20000

tokens =
  frequencies
  |> Enum.sort_by(&elem(&1, 1), :desc)
  |> Enum.take(num_tokens)
  |> Enum.with_index(fn {token, _}, i -> {token, i + 1} end)
  |> Map.new()

%{
  "ladies" => 1755,
  "reallife" => 3432,
  "carface" => 9990,
  "breathtakingly" => 13360,
  "turtles" => 17161,
  "dalton" => 4568,
  "reggie" => 19124,
  "manuscript" => 15028,
  "summer" => 1494,
  "nazis" => 3671,
  "polar" => 9118,
  "restbr" => 17160,
  "bordering" => 16356,
  "witchery" => 18078,
  "plan" => 1258,
  "clueless" => 5759,
  "orca" => 13854,
  "recommend" => 366,
  "earths" => 13359,
  "reign" => 5412,
  "atrocity" => 10240,
  "welcome" => 2372,
  "spader" => 17159,
  "interpreted" => 9750,
  "pressed" => 8911,
  "pierce" => 5135,
  "stitzer" => 19123,
  "nutty" => 9546,
  "inevitably" => 4932,
  "tales" => 2767,
  "mira" => 8721,
  "nadia" => 11396,
  "subgenre" => 7806,
  "natasha" => 8720,
  "guidelines" => 15027,
  "curry" => 16355,
  "captors" => 16354,
  "destruction" => 3559,
  "term" => 2938,
  "philadelphia" => 10239,
  "obligatory" => 5609,
  "favour" => 5197,
  "nbc" => 6677,
  "lulls" => 18077,
  "courtney" => 11395,
  "waterman" => 13853,
  "at" => 30,
  "indicator" => 16353,
  "jeanie" => 16352,
  "pakistani" => 13852,
  ...
}

review = review = "The Departed is Martin Scorsese's best work, and anybody
who disagrees is wrong. This movie is amazing."

tokenize = fn review ->
  review
  |> String.downcase()
  |> String.replace(~r/[\p{P}\p{S}]/, "")
  |> String.split()
  |> Enum.map(&Map.get(tokens, &1))
end

tokenize.(review)

[1, 11359, 6, 1557, 13291, 114, 160, 3, 1746, 35, nil, 6, 358, 10, 18, 6, 466]

review = "The Departed is Martin Scorsese's best work, and anybody
who disagrees is wrong. This movie is amazing."

unknown_token = 0

tokens =
  frequencies
  |> Enum.sort_by(&elem(&1, 1), :desc)
  |> Enum.take(num_tokens)
  |> Enum.with_index(fn {token, _}, i -> {token, i + 1} end)
  |> Map.new()

tokenize = fn review ->
  review
  |> String.downcase()
  |> String.replace(~r/[\p{P}\p{S}]/, "")
  |> String.split()
  |> Enum.map(&Map.get(tokens, &1, unknown_token))
  |> Nx.tensor()
end

tokenize.(review)

#Nx.Tensor<
  s64[17]
  EXLA.Backend
  [1, 11359, 6, 1557, 13291, 114, 160, 3, 1746, 35, 0, 6, 358, 10, 18, 6, 466]
>

pad_token = 0
unknown_token = num_tokens + 1

max_seq_len = 128

tokens =
  frequencies
  |> Enum.sort_by(&elem(&1, 1), :desc)
  |> Enum.take(num_tokens)
  |> Enum.with_index(fn {token, _}, i -> {token, i + 2} end)
  |> Map.new()

tokenize = fn review ->
  review
  |> String.downcase()
  |> String.replace(~r/[\p{P}\p{S}]/, "")
  |> String.split()
  |> Enum.map(&Map.get(tokens, &1, unknown_token))
  |> Nx.tensor()
  |> then(&Nx.pad(&1, pad_token, [{0, max_seq_len - Nx.size(&1), 0}]))
end

#Function<42.125776118/1 in :erl_eval.expr/6>

batch_size = 32

train_pipeline =
  train_data
  |> Stream.map(fn {review, label} -> {tokenize.(review), Nx.tensor(label)} end)
  |> Stream.chunk_every(batch_size, batch_size, :discard)
  |> Stream.map(fn reviews_and_labels ->
    {review, label} = Enum.unzip(reviews_and_labels)
    {Nx.stack(review), Nx.stack(label) |> Nx.new_axis(-1)}
  end)
  |> Enum.to_list()

test_pipeline =
  test_data
  |> Stream.map(fn {review, label} -> {tokenize.(review), Nx.tensor(label)} end)
  |> Stream.chunk_every(batch_size, batch_size, :discard)
  |> Stream.map(fn reviews_and_labels ->
    {review, label} = Enum.unzip(reviews_and_labels)
    {Nx.stack(review), Nx.stack(label) |> Nx.new_axis(-1)}
  end)
  |> Enum.to_list()

...
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0]
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [20001, 20001, 20001, 7, 34, 311, 1890, 18000, 1076, 12, 7740, 421, 9789, 20001, 20001, 300, 6862, 1133, 15, 68, 32, 2, 18000, 2995, 6, 28, 595, 6, 1264, 1066, 15, 442, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [45, 48, 14, 3, 2745, 2022, 466, 9, 59, 75, 3, 299, 1034, 8, 2, 9193, 5, 20001, 2, 113, 45, 48, 14, 136, 3, 150, 14, 2522, 2, 112, 8, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [8, 2, 1105, 2457, 6, 702, 2302, 95, 125, 6, 929, 11, 7, 2, 229, 19, 12, 139, 28, 635, 132, 107, 3, 192, 335, 5, 2302, 93, 37, 32, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [255, 74, 494, 2, 2322, 308, 196, 202, 67, 3, 2363, 1545, 16, 4641, 1273, 38, 10, 14, 1952, 3659, 33, 2, 939, 5, 2309, 2221, 6, 2, 4139, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 19, 91, 9, 79, 29, 5, 56, 414, 299, 88, 381, 93, 518, 13, 13, 48, 267, 3, 9417, 902, 114, 48, 267, 3, 540, 17, 29, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 20, 91, 16, 803, 248, 1963, 17, 2, 1542, 952, 9, 44, 16, 3, 531, 18576, 222, 51, 4791, 2, 181, 133, 31, 2, 2151, 5, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [5111, 2594, 5, 85, 4620, 2890, 39, 2, 2555, 5, 2, 12302, 20001, 7628, 807, 732, 1194, 7, 3, 64, 43, 5665, 5058, 4, 6248, 490, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [2, 2178, 3, 957, 5, 257, 2, 198, 14, 3, 947, 1867, 781, 4, 29, 12, 44, 3762, 17, 61, 1056, 6, 11, 4427, 957, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [2, 64, 5, 2, 444, 3190, 5, 12863, 15, 9, 14, 271, 8786, 44, 3531, 874, 37, 10325, 5434, 8, 18533, 36, 2684, 1667, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 7, 3, 85, 19, 10, 117, 2, 302, 3, 131, 604, 9, 67, 34, 1758, 20001, 6, 9, 10, 433, 6485, 1588, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 1035, 11, 19, 21, 2, 7304, 1295, 21, 1933, 29, 539, 2728, 23, 226, 130, 36, 1283, 2, 2844, 7, 3, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 90, 118, 49, 11, 19, 7, 43, 63, 30, 39, 3, 1439, 532, 396, 1139, 35, 111, 130, 135, 2, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 3840, 97, 58, 48, 21, 56, 414, 1085, 5, 240, 93, 196, 109, 38, 232, 21, 20001, 21, 4921, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 41, 183, 140, 146, 11, 297, 31, 347, 72, 116, 2890, 38, 56, 670, 1564, 9, 27, 620, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [416, 856, 9, 96, 26, 76, 3, 50, 19, 3, 116, 20001, 780, 16, 2, 20001, 7692, 18, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [2, 229, 2145, 14, 53, 3571, 10, 1851, 39, 2, 86, 19, 18, 174, 130, 10, 341, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [49, 10, 409, 115, 8, 11, 20, 7, 12, 39, 2, 95, 5, 2973, 9, 7, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [3122, 2783, 20001, 1639, 485, 2, 877, 31, 2, 586, 5, 6529, 8, 6201, 13, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [53, 164, 4431, 93, 26, 76, 91, 125, 2, 229, 363, 5, 148, 18, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 6038, 19, 7, 2, 7744, 2, 851, 1925, 51, 2, 20001, 1136, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 14, 5968, 6, 104, 11, 19, 981, 9, 6, 28, 2, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [813, 16319, 489, 8, 241, 154, 12187, 236, 15, 9488, 15110, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 90, 26, 73, 6, 739, 6, 49, 44, 76, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [132, 72, 138, 17, 83, 1204, 19, 50, 282, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [56, 1781, 6608, 11, 4, 1137, 9, 6, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [49, 1854, 183, 132, 7, 3, 890, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [10, 139, 26, 619, 51, 10, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       [0],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [13, 13, 5160, 3880, 4785, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       [1],
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [11, 7, 3, 85, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [0],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [9, 7, 53, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [1],
       [1],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [142, 22, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [0],
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       [30, ...],
       ...
     ]
   >,
   #Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][1]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       ...
     ]
   >},
  {#Nx.Tensor<
     s64[32][128]
     EXLA.Backend
     [
       ...
     ]
   >, ...},
  {...},
  ...
]

Trying to Read with MLPs

Introducing Recurrent Neural Networks

init = Axon.Initializers.glorot_uniform()

sequence = Axon.input("review")
mask = Axon.mask(sequence, 0)
embedded = sequence |> Axon.embedding(num_tokens + 2, 64)
{rnn_sequence, _state} = Axon.lstm(embedded, 64, mask: mask)
final_token = Axon.nx(rnn_sequence, fn seq -> Nx.squeeze(seq[[0..-1//1, -1, 0..-1//1]]) end)
model = final_token |> Axon.dense(64, activation: :relu) |> Axon.dense(1)

#Axon<
  inputs: %{"review" => nil}
  outputs: "dense_1"
  nodes: 12
>

input_template = Nx.template({32, 128}, :s64)
Axon.Display.as_graph(model, input_template)

graph TD;
28[/"review (:input) {32, 128}"/];
29["mask_0 (:mask) {32, 128}"];
30["embedding_0 (:embedding) {32, 128, 64}"];
31["lstm_0_c_hidden_state (:recurrent_state) {32, 64}"];
32["lstm_0_h_hidden_state (:recurrent_state) {32, 64}"];
34["lstm__hidden_state (:container) {{32, 64}, {32, 64}}"];
35["lstm_0 (:lstm) {{32, 128, 64}, {{32, 64}, {32, 64}}}"];
36["lstm_1_output_sequence (:elem) {32, 128, 64}"];
39["nx_0 (:nx) {32, 64}"];
40["dense_0 (:dense) {32, 64}"];
41["relu_0 (:relu) {32, 64}"];
42["dense_1 (:dense) {32, 1}"];
41 --> 42;
40 --> 41;
39 --> 40;
36 --> 39;
35 --> 36;
29 --> 35;
34 --> 35;
30 --> 35;
28 --> 29;
32 --> 34;
31 --> 34;
30 --> 32;
30 --> 31;
28 --> 30;

loss = &Axon.Losses.binary_cross_entropy(&1, &2, from_logits: true, reduction: :mean)

optimizer = Axon.Optimizers.adam(1.0e-3)

trained_model_state =
  model
  |> Axon.Loop.trainer(loss, optimizer, log: 1)
  |> Axon.Loop.metric(:accuracy)
  |> Axon.Loop.run(train_pipeline, %{}, epochs: 10, compiler: EXLA)

warning: Axon.Optimizers.adam/1 is deprecated. Use Polaris.Optimizers.adam/1 instead
  /Users/sean/projects/smelixir/Book/code/UnderstandingText.livemd#cell:fpxev4gqv4bf54b6lkqnvvlbhtdrt5gb:3


13:38:30.689 [debug] Forwarding options: [compiler: EXLA] to JIT compiler

13:38:30.690 [warning] passing parameter map to initialization is deprecated, use %Axon.ModelState{} instead
Epoch: 0, Batch: 359, accuracy: 0.4984377 loss: 0.6928607

model
|> Axon.Loop.evaluator()
|> Axon.Loop.metric(:accuracy)
|> Axon.Loop.run(test_pipeline, trained_model_state, compiler: EXLA)

16:20:00.635 [debug] Forwarding options: [compiler: EXLA] to JIT compiler
Batch: 30, accuracy: 0.7510081

%{
  0 => %{
    "accuracy" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32
      EXLA.Backend
      0.7510080933570862
    >
  }
}

Going in Two Directions

sequence = Axon.input("review")
mask = Axon.mask(sequence, 0)
embedded = Axon.embedding(sequence, num_tokens + 2, 64)

{rnn_sequence, _state} =
  Axon.bidirectional(
    embedded,
    &Axon.lstm(&1, 64, mask: mask, unroll: :static),
    &Axon.concatenate/2
  )

final_token =
  Axon.nx(rnn_sequence, fn seq ->
    Nx.squeeze(seq[[0..-1//1, -1, 0..-1//1]])
  end)

model =
  final_token
  |> Axon.dense(64, activation: :relu)
  |> Axon.dense(1)

#Axon<
  inputs: %{"review" => nil}
  outputs: "dense_1"
  nodes: 21
>

input_template = Nx.template({64, 64}, :s64)
Axon.Display.as_graph(model, input_template)

loss =
  &Axon.Losses.binary_cross_entropy(&1, &2,
    from_logits: true,
    reduction: :mean
  )

optimizer = Axon.Optimizers.adam(1.0e-4)

trained_model_state =
  model
  |> Axon.Loop.trainer(loss, optimizer)
  |> Axon.Loop.metric(:accuracy)
  |> Axon.Loop.run(train_pipeline, %{}, epochs: 10, compiler: EXLA)

warning: Axon.Optimizers.adam/1 is deprecated. Use Polaris.Optimizers.adam/1 instead
  UnderstandingText.livemd#cell:mt7kmkc7lojmmoo7ehpjcu6oebofamzn:5


16:23:19.627 [debug] Forwarding options: [compiler: EXLA] to JIT compiler

16:29:11.640 [error] The operation took 5m24.096844s

********************************
[Compiling module _Function_4.26612097_4_in_Axon.Loop.build_batch_fn_2_.24362] Very slow compile? If you want to file a bug, run with envvar XLA_FLAGS=--xla_dump_to=/tmp/foo and attach the results.
********************************
Epoch: 0, Batch: 350, accuracy: 0.5190082 loss: 0.6815987
Epoch: 1, Batch: 341, accuracy: 0.7035355 loss: 0.6067376
Epoch: 2, Batch: 332, accuracy: 0.7509853 loss: 0.5645106
Epoch: 3, Batch: 323, accuracy: 0.7610434 loss: 0.5400541
Epoch: 4, Batch: 314, accuracy: 0.7647320 loss: 0.5240928
Epoch: 5, Batch: 355, accuracy: 0.7672051 loss: 0.5114447
Epoch: 6, Batch: 346, accuracy: 0.7690023 loss: 0.5031880
Epoch: 7, Batch: 337, accuracy: 0.7696466 loss: 0.4966677
Epoch: 8, Batch: 328, accuracy: 0.7717992 loss: 0.4912724
Epoch: 9, Batch: 319, accuracy: 0.7726074 loss: 0.4866871

%{
  "dense_0" => %{
    "bias" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32[64]
      EXLA.Backend
      [0.026425177231431007, 0.02574201673269272, 0.01970193162560463, 0.005707539618015289, 0.009441194124519825, 0.02757568284869194, 0.026414113119244576, 0.014510959386825562, 0.020023789256811142, 0.024265961721539497, 0.025004636496305466, 0.014331809245049953, 0.02211211808025837, 0.01575888879597187, 0.0351068377494812, 0.018954485654830933, 0.009668434970080853, 0.02329523302614689, 0.030149146914482117, 0.03508638218045235, 0.028842423111200333, 0.02314949221909046, 0.02125546522438526, 0.011788405478000641, 0.02388613298535347, 0.008552965708076954, 0.029059432446956635, 0.035613853484392166, 0.025743989273905754, 0.03111451119184494, 0.017638174816966057, 0.02386687695980072, 0.022364161908626556, 0.023581981658935547, 0.025413958355784416, 0.020060284063220024, 0.020338349044322968, 0.015926994383335114, 0.019728884100914, 0.025505632162094116, 0.025305625051259995, 0.028569070622324944, 0.028044918552041054, 0.028068648651242256, 0.02442517690360546, 0.023019976913928986, 0.020266080275177956, 0.021091189235448837, ...]
    >,
    "kernel" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32[128][64]
      EXLA.Backend
      [
        [0.0016364790499210358, 0.12422511726617813, 0.12529902160167694, -0.006509807426482439, 0.201560378074646, 0.008936464786529541, -0.19344869256019592, -0.07553975284099579, 0.17859618365764618, -0.03454730287194252, -0.07502596080303192, -0.08455276489257812, 0.0045682755298912525, 0.160508394241333, -0.14307016134262085, 0.17354191839694977, 0.1003963053226471, 0.025634635239839554, 0.02741144597530365, 0.08908133953809738, 0.14648108184337616, -0.03415202349424362, -0.05700685456395149, 0.10312366485595703, -0.1401204913854599, -0.19456958770751953, 0.0795624703168869, -0.2145518809556961, 0.12685255706310272, -0.09429654479026794, -0.17514550685882568, -0.12517528235912323, 0.13619394600391388, 0.19994352757930756, 0.10679589956998825, 0.023488586768507957, 0.04428770765662193, 0.19068387150764465, -0.04307686537504196, 0.22359192371368408, 0.03218115121126175, 0.07935698330402374, 0.22153587639331818, 0.0977587178349495, 0.10367054492235184, 0.04005813971161842, 0.19543208181858063, ...],
        ...
      ]
    >
  },
  "dense_1" => %{
    "bias" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32[1]
      EXLA.Backend
      [0.003778108861297369]
    >,
    "kernel" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32[64][1]
      EXLA.Backend
      [
        [0.22275963425636292],
        [-0.2978772222995758],
        [-0.33068782091140747],
        [-0.13896235823631287],
        [-0.1675218790769577],
        [0.07177701592445374],
        [0.2093116194009781],
        [0.3271471858024597],
        [-0.2557740807533264],
        [0.28136271238327026],
        [-0.3361011743545532],
        [-0.1662110537290573],
        [-0.3094247281551361],
        [-0.29216232895851135],
        [0.06244860216975212],
        [-0.25407737493515015],
        [0.12722593545913696],
        [0.31798288226127625],
        [0.2254945933818817],
        [0.054071422666311264],
        [-0.15241947770118713],
        [0.1409558206796646],
        [0.26063254475593567],
        [-0.2015857845544815],
        [0.33458784222602844],
        [0.2084195911884308],
        [-0.2507256269454956],
        [0.12041862308979034],
        [-0.12336181849241257],
        [0.12990596890449524],
        [0.19229468703269958],
        [0.2820028066635132],
        [-0.083195261657238],
        [-0.26067060232162476],
        [0.21533165872097015],
        [-0.2803671956062317],
        [-0.17092615365982056],
        [-0.19940638542175293],
        [-0.2337883710861206],
        [-0.13523609936237335],
        [0.2678152024745941],
        [-0.2837866246700287],
        [-0.19163735210895538],
        [0.15023359656333923],
        [-0.12711799144744873],
        [0.16215340793132782],
        ...
      ]
    >
  },
  "embedding_0" => %{
    "kernel" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32[1026][64]
      EXLA.Backend
      [
        [-0.03018813394010067, -0.021108979359269142, 0.04781138151884079, 0.07294193655252457, 0.05740302428603172, -1.631266641197726e-4, 0.08354303985834122, -0.09249790012836456, -0.047703277319669724, 0.001552219269797206, 0.0970190018415451, 0.10098718106746674, 0.09308438003063202, -0.015627646818757057, 0.08809760957956314, -0.09043317288160324, -4.1340748430229723e-4, -0.07270201295614243, 0.07987973839044571, 0.08803460001945496, 0.06245538592338562, -0.06076013296842575, 0.07420355081558228, 0.05447736009955406, -0.030528781935572624, 0.07782605290412903, -0.0764910951256752, 0.035179946571588516, 0.0225292406976223, 0.04495778679847717, -0.08500242233276367, 0.051841944456100464, -0.007154183462262154, -0.08629990369081497, -0.0356353223323822, -0.02999570220708847, 0.058808501809835434, -0.013026000931859016, 0.07091435045003891, -0.06076560541987419, -0.03568091243505478, 0.0776427760720253, 0.08060137182474136, 0.050114020705223083, 0.023559141904115677, -0.0498184971511364, ...],
        ...
      ]
    >
  },
  "lstm_0" => %{
    "bias" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [0.022386709228157997, 0.02627464197576046, 0.02699219435453415, 0.02242557518184185, -2.2863350750412792e-5, 0.014217234216630459, -0.012878211215138435, 0.022751862183213234, 0.013627687469124794, 0.022016407921910286, 0.02331376075744629, 0.019684376195073128, 0.016762886196374893, 0.011979261413216591, 0.010937180370092392, 0.010351831093430519, 0.016800614073872566, 0.019951526075601578, 0.0013640328543260694, 0.024299874901771545, 0.016287654638290405, 0.006726844701915979, 0.028162114322185516, 0.010570109821856022, 0.03137241676449776, 0.025055449455976486, 0.030501024797558784, -0.0062546744011342525, 0.009842951782047749, 0.025063225999474525, 0.017975859344005585, 0.023878538981080055, 0.02145908772945404, 0.02295783907175064, 0.023577997460961342, 0.028132550418376923, 0.017880532890558243, 0.01365284901112318, 0.01683609001338482, 0.006280265282839537, 0.025578299537301064, 0.016145911067724228, 0.023715194314718246, 0.02071395330131054, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [0.019920920953154564, 0.027247639372944832, 0.023247497156262398, 0.02031647600233555, -0.006507763173431158, 0.021605344489216805, 0.001895194873213768, 0.011625487357378006, 0.011018534190952778, 0.01693132147192955, 0.01805688999593258, 0.013769441284239292, 0.02199878916144371, 0.008807606063783169, -0.011219067499041557, 0.007839517667889595, 0.015578677877783775, 0.01895509846508503, -0.0011790756834670901, 0.02318144217133522, 0.010058390907943249, 0.007695097476243973, 0.023718994110822678, 0.012453337199985981, 0.025989774614572525, 0.020976677536964417, 0.02460598200559616, -0.007977510802447796, 0.0027094436809420586, 0.0220793429762125, 0.018681736662983894, 0.022182798013091087, 0.016239125281572342, 0.022161070257425308, 0.018645361065864563, 0.02860705927014351, 0.015658650547266006, 0.008416303433477879, 0.019634908065199852, 0.0018460029968991876, 0.023003384470939636, 0.012855897657573223, 0.022571545094251633, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [7.254193187691271e-4, -0.0011113302316516638, -1.4220929006114602e-4, 0.006350685376673937, 0.0013983851531520486, 0.0025395092088729143, -0.00958852469921112, 1.0631760960677639e-4, -4.697707772720605e-4, 2.3401749785989523e-4, 9.901528246700764e-4, -0.005703396163880825, -0.0029891158919781446, 0.003761362051591277, 5.800179787911475e-4, -0.0030263043008744717, 0.002957185497507453, -1.7405407561454922e-4, 0.0022236364893615246, 0.0022241827100515366, -0.0019280591513961554, -0.006994433235377073, -0.0017066667787730694, -0.0021321168169379234, -0.0032413217704743147, 0.012564917095005512, -0.014085913076996803, -0.00449269637465477, 0.0028646986465901136, 0.0033018053509294987, 0.0026540877297520638, -0.0012114096898585558, -8.769928244873881e-4, 0.005623657256364822, -0.003978627268224955, 0.003161025932058692, 0.0012752572074532509, 0.0018716217018663883, 0.0016872254200279713, -0.012431853450834751, 2.0146866154391319e-4, -1.949948346009478e-4, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [0.020685328170657158, 0.026338666677474976, 0.02526816911995411, 0.021641243249177933, -0.0020313626155257225, 0.017908018082380295, -0.005140983033925295, 0.01808099076151848, 0.013970796018838882, 0.0200344305485487, 0.020363055169582367, 0.018075019121170044, 0.01991889253258705, 0.010423634201288223, 0.006628028582781553, 0.008941646665334702, 0.01569685898721218, 0.02051997371017933, 6.188777624629438e-4, 0.02307925373315811, 0.013349153101444244, 0.006785530596971512, 0.026729030534625053, 0.010539645329117775, 0.030146043747663498, 0.023086972534656525, 0.029033463448286057, -0.0067875138483941555, 0.006461051292717457, 0.023662766441702843, 0.019151071086525917, 0.023221269249916077, 0.019928093999624252, 0.022207124158740044, 0.022656124085187912, 0.027573352679610252, 0.018066557124257088, 0.013841194100677967, 0.017215117812156677, 0.005491204094141722, 0.024855611845850945, ...]
     >},
    "hidden_kernel" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.05344462767243385, 0.17795151472091675, 0.07537736743688583, 0.14583513140678406, -0.022087153047323227, 0.01570114493370056, 0.13005013763904572, -0.052497509866952896, -0.18355481326580048, -0.17857839167118073, -3.557925228960812e-4, -0.1386384814977646, -0.04210089519619942, -0.21234962344169617, -0.043793827295303345, 0.21149712800979614, 0.06111079454421997, 0.12044757604598999, -0.11400897800922394, -0.15559934079647064, 0.06054599955677986, 0.04939539358019829, -0.12737798690795898, -0.08228156715631485, -0.05639863759279251, -0.0023360783234238625, -0.013072527945041656, -0.09843800216913223, -0.20396536588668823, 0.049202434718608856, -0.18184493482112885, -0.012514688074588776, 0.10143547505140305, 0.1945241540670395, -0.1129315122961998, 0.17307813465595245, -0.19540715217590332, -0.2006027102470398, 0.1426910012960434, 0.02788909152150154, -0.22602218389511108, -0.18105196952819824, -0.10809153318405151, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.058768756687641144, 0.1796003133058548, 0.07768213748931885, 0.14863398671150208, -0.019882626831531525, 0.012806461192667484, 0.1386515200138092, -0.04842965677380562, -0.17940060794353485, -0.18933695554733276, 0.005323554389178753, -0.14170555770397186, -0.04927527531981468, -0.2148529291152954, -0.04121381416916847, 0.20657096803188324, 0.06251168251037598, 0.1190335601568222, -0.11406790465116501, -0.1516343653202057, 0.06279408186674118, 0.04872734472155571, -0.12610536813735962, -0.08128225803375244, -0.05117615684866905, -9.695166372694075e-4, -0.011343961581587791, -0.08098588138818741, -0.20472951233386993, 0.051860421895980835, -0.1723344326019287, -0.010734551586210728, 0.10708217322826385, 0.19630306959152222, -0.11457943171262741, 0.17379367351531982, -0.19458508491516113, -0.20274955034255981, 0.13751965761184692, 0.030032528564333916, -0.228439062833786, -0.18576544523239136, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.0849311351776123, 0.20068760216236115, 0.10642797499895096, 0.14756329357624054, -0.012285085394978523, 0.013652660883963108, 0.09018688648939133, -0.02893419750034809, -0.14632870256900787, -0.18621766567230225, -0.0015424725133925676, -0.15575845539569855, -0.023643366992473602, -0.21674294769763947, -0.06749305129051208, 0.19909390807151794, 0.06788378953933716, 0.11771195381879807, -0.1236051619052887, -0.13740061223506927, 0.053455598652362823, 0.05421622097492218, -0.1333790123462677, -0.08842761814594269, -0.06303658336400986, -0.01738312654197216, -0.050528205931186676, -0.10231106728315353, -0.20016077160835266, 0.06424831598997116, -0.1602134257555008, -0.021352991461753845, 0.10226677358150482, 0.2111535221338272, -0.11901898682117462, 0.19544105231761932, -0.19964911043643951, -0.20173774659633636, 0.13857415318489075, 0.0056043267250061035, -0.229889377951622, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.05581109598278999, 0.17793875932693481, 0.07520852982997894, 0.14844556152820587, -0.022171391174197197, 0.014574340544641018, 0.13566061854362488, -0.05055276304483414, -0.18337585031986237, -0.18385618925094604, 0.00286742951720953, -0.1387215554714203, -0.046707816421985626, -0.21324492990970612, -0.04453612118959427, 0.20923154056072235, 0.0618475116789341, 0.11696206033229828, -0.11590130627155304, -0.154020294547081, 0.0630318820476532, 0.049895815551280975, -0.1269122213125229, -0.08261249959468842, -0.05264904722571373, -7.68363184761256e-4, -0.011150700971484184, -0.08824329823255539, -0.2035399079322815, 0.05039990320801735, -0.1774042248725891, -0.011877836659550667, 0.1033894345164299, 0.19610077142715454, -0.11545123904943466, 0.17338627576828003, -0.19685564935207367, -0.20294229686260223, 0.140102818608284, 0.028711115941405296, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >},
    "input_kernel" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [-0.11586850136518478, -0.1379576474428177, -0.12422454357147217, 0.1617598682641983, 0.17649349570274353, 0.08665731549263, -0.07344032824039459, -0.06110135093331337, -0.09118194878101349, 0.12996402382850647, 0.023188171908259392, 0.175913468003273, 0.16765806078910828, 1.760617597028613e-4, -0.22336898744106293, 0.18214218318462372, 0.13983091711997986, -0.04492541775107384, 0.11311439424753189, 0.2132388949394226, -0.07826700061559677, 0.22469481825828552, -0.10141290724277496, 0.02891852892935276, -0.1674955040216446, 0.10748832672834396, 0.2014930099248886, 0.061380479484796524, 0.13440021872520447, -0.13192349672317505, 0.2302393764257431, -0.07426611334085464, -0.13157935440540314, -0.11563356965780258, 0.0491650328040123, 0.18915514647960663, -0.07977433502674103, -0.0542413555085659, -0.19693264365196228, 0.20566709339618683, 0.02063099853694439, -0.04295691102743149, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [-0.14330455660820007, -0.16902895271778107, -0.15150122344493866, 0.10176197439432144, 0.18676531314849854, 0.05085023120045662, -0.09499723464250565, -0.06924069672822952, -0.10366354137659073, 0.10430966317653656, -0.008092447184026241, 0.12671194970607758, 0.125176340341568, -0.024658359587192535, -0.22765053808689117, 0.14479047060012817, 0.11542454361915588, -0.06667035818099976, 0.10440882295370102, 0.1800817847251892, -0.11898820847272873, 0.22423027455806732, -0.1371849626302719, 0.0056612505577504635, -0.18531015515327454, 0.07175823301076889, 0.2046676129102707, 0.06837096810340881, 0.11781475692987442, -0.15089894831180573, 0.17871810495853424, -0.11707909405231476, -0.16950006783008575, -0.15542437136173248, 0.009708474390208721, 0.1675209105014801, -0.10194829851388931, -0.06545384228229523, -0.2242152839899063, 0.14981688559055328, -0.007738953921943903, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [-0.07980423420667648, -0.10808905959129333, -0.08484348654747009, 0.12783919274806976, 0.1782723367214203, 0.051909007132053375, -0.14895513653755188, -0.031988296657800674, -0.014743915759027004, 0.08212108910083771, -0.018103061243891716, 0.05654863640666008, 0.20603203773498535, -0.0361231192946434, -0.2568480670452118, 0.11219670623540878, 0.14685854315757751, -0.06914834678173065, 0.1474994570016861, 0.2371245175600052, -0.16076484322547913, 0.21622557938098907, -0.15825779736042023, -0.003954021725803614, -0.19408255815505981, 0.07520507276058197, 0.11482277512550354, 0.07983408868312836, 0.11859163641929626, -0.11025658249855042, 0.24411028623580933, -0.13646341860294342, -0.1711006909608841, -0.1071741133928299, 3.529853420332074e-4, 0.22085480391979218, -0.10985995084047318, -0.06774458289146423, -0.22766950726509094, 0.08935221284627914, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [-0.12462237477302551, -0.15209801495075226, -0.13650935888290405, 0.15753471851348877, 0.17966724932193756, 0.0672854334115982, -0.08081752806901932, -0.06499636173248291, -0.09829041361808777, 0.12184708565473557, 0.010672693140804768, 0.16132952272891998, 0.15285778045654297, -0.011007769964635372, -0.21854576468467712, 0.16742774844169617, 0.12872327864170074, -0.05892608314752579, 0.107007697224617, 0.1992320716381073, -0.09092291444540024, 0.22983767092227936, -0.11544353514909744, 0.01737138070166111, -0.17363829910755157, 0.10147816687822342, 0.20539163053035736, 0.06936262547969818, 0.13810475170612335, -0.1373225599527359, 0.21848152577877045, -0.08861962705850601, -0.15230505168437958, -0.128253772854805, 0.0289793498814106, 0.18109416961669922, -0.09264412522315979, -0.06487754732370377, -0.20889216661453247, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >}
  },
  "lstm_1" => %{
    "bias" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [-0.0025272401981055737, 0.024541039019823074, 0.07768689095973969, 0.01324550248682499, 0.013301488012075424, -0.012825998477637768, 0.030401133000850677, 0.028415270149707794, 0.010750176385045052, 0.012904724106192589, -0.00987478531897068, 0.03439725562930107, 0.002026212401688099, 0.012664943933486938, 0.018568065017461777, 0.007623608224093914, 0.035822078585624695, 0.007500359322875738, 0.019584154710173607, -0.010294152423739433, 0.025080924853682518, 0.04145006835460663, 0.018237272277474403, -0.001965748844668269, 0.012772439047694206, 0.030286971479654312, 0.01878580078482628, 0.03365122154355049, -0.008887900039553642, 0.04456116259098053, 0.0017075161449611187, -0.008116750046610832, 0.019011804834008217, 0.044840723276138306, 0.02773115783929825, 0.019552938640117645, 0.008727927692234516, 0.016429146751761436, 0.0461512915790081, 0.029021380469202995, 0.007175144739449024, 0.03462795540690422, 0.011391524225473404, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [0.026347335427999496, -0.01835920847952366, 0.010007085278630257, 0.015884362161159515, 0.008079654537141323, -0.010501278564333916, -0.007140979636460543, -0.004094040486961603, 0.006050824653357267, -0.010225613601505756, -5.943496362306178e-4, -0.016379978507757187, -0.009916002862155437, -0.015740007162094116, -2.7496489929035306e-4, 0.03157850727438927, 0.003247750224545598, -0.001816672389395535, -3.125133225694299e-4, 0.006187512539327145, -0.0036827714648097754, -0.02877970039844513, -0.01671099290251732, -0.019841695204377174, 0.0072749825194478035, -0.00573157612234354, 0.0026243827305734158, 0.03205951675772667, 0.007192122284322977, 0.047445666044950485, 0.003835448296740651, 0.005096350330859423, 0.009499384090304375, 4.421690246090293e-4, 0.010702939704060555, 0.005395897198468447, 0.02398531883955002, -0.0040528434328734875, -0.0017017925856634974, 0.006620981264859438, 0.026024535298347473, 0.03373754024505615, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [5.413553444668651e-4, 0.04002939909696579, -0.012238929979503155, 0.010334176011383533, -0.01866089552640915, -0.021377457305788994, 0.01844235509634018, 0.0014358730986714363, -0.027693891897797585, -0.018481828272342682, 0.022522011771798134, 0.02920355089008808, 0.031522080302238464, -0.0020305935759097338, 0.011431006714701653, 0.021130850538611412, 0.023684514686465263, 0.024638134986162186, -9.313760092481971e-4, 0.00882133562117815, -0.020358115434646606, -0.0184667706489563, 0.017309168353676796, 0.01397358626127243, 0.01218944787979126, 0.030364882200956345, -0.012177572585642338, -0.038756243884563446, 0.007303636055439711, 0.01684543490409851, 0.022109543904662132, -0.014151970855891705, 0.0023031318560242653, 0.04201309010386467, -6.80584111250937e-4, 0.02633601240813732, -0.0018452670192345977, 0.002301336731761694, 0.016600651666522026, 0.027953289449214935, 0.041478998959064484, ...]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [0.01954949088394642, 0.006279159802943468, 0.06247386708855629, 0.020856935530900955, 0.017019078135490417, -0.014849268831312656, 0.018011078238487244, 0.01472052838653326, 0.014494235627353191, 0.0044435057789087296, -0.007631260901689529, 0.016170671209692955, -0.004377511329948902, -0.002109066117554903, 0.01742810569703579, 0.02930283546447754, 0.030161960050463676, 0.0038285457994788885, 0.014871271327137947, -0.0026731325779110193, 0.016717558726668358, 0.011226295493543148, 0.0048794373869895935, -0.015400758944451809, 0.013505806215107441, 0.0178956538438797, 0.014534472487866879, 0.056501924991607666, 1.446372625650838e-4, 0.05927804857492447, 0.004697703290730715, -1.8998423183802515e-4, 0.020182933658361435, 0.03838662803173065, 0.02990810014307499, 0.020391274243593216, 0.025106510147452354, 0.010993155650794506, 0.03362467512488365, 0.02547309547662735, ...]
     >},
    "hidden_kernel" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.14522947371006012, -0.17346951365470886, -0.08576922118663788, -0.04194037616252899, -0.09948618710041046, 0.20858609676361084, -0.09208138287067413, 0.016392221674323082, -0.19854392111301422, 0.22644862532615662, 0.016346994787454605, 0.07051901519298553, -0.09789618104696274, -0.1627742350101471, -0.07139746099710464, 0.1826021671295166, -0.00583646260201931, 0.1934651881456375, -0.19489596784114838, 0.004442148841917515, 0.05918610095977783, 0.18690788745880127, -0.19234317541122437, -0.042787086218595505, 0.19936701655387878, 0.15905845165252686, 0.00949318427592516, 0.0859362930059433, -0.017662452533841133, 0.14763374626636505, -0.06735390424728394, -0.0022784897591918707, -0.1235600933432579, -0.13402466475963593, -0.17676414549350739, -0.04398994520306587, 0.059701330959796906, -0.06388237327337265, 0.14186373353004456, 0.017988329753279686, 0.12160925567150116, 0.05753174051642418, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.10670304298400879, -0.11745992302894592, -0.06990417838096619, -0.050489503890275955, -0.11010602861642838, 0.2026144117116928, -0.09838443994522095, -0.018106242641806602, -0.19567400217056274, 0.1991955041885376, -0.020274292677640915, 0.10250063985586166, -0.12981164455413818, -0.14808320999145508, -0.15742364525794983, 0.15040205419063568, -0.05501415953040123, 0.18964533507823944, -0.19063346087932587, -0.051540058106184006, 0.0014151401119306684, 0.08858392387628555, -0.17736659944057465, -0.005187878850847483, 0.1937982589006424, 0.16403380036354065, 0.05834653228521347, 0.040227994322776794, -0.02102559618651867, 0.10011430084705353, -0.05679243430495262, 9.591322741471231e-4, -0.07779987901449203, -0.1678224354982376, -0.20876824855804443, -0.043424490839242935, 0.11460408568382263, -0.060322027653455734, 0.12027319520711899, -0.010182598605751991, 0.11051362007856369, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.13737766444683075, -0.1396859884262085, -0.13908478617668152, -0.043448712676763535, -0.10882457345724106, 0.1499980241060257, -0.03762883320450783, -0.008911911398172379, -0.2307688593864441, 0.16077293455600739, 0.03204802796244621, 0.08005257695913315, -0.08817635476589203, -0.18957050144672394, -0.08803922683000565, 0.17238882184028625, -0.009679065085947514, 0.17477448284626007, -0.2075749635696411, 0.003840753575786948, -0.009869294241070747, 0.09513173997402191, -0.18709498643875122, -0.008243340998888016, 0.182550311088562, 0.17290762066841125, 0.01851755939424038, 0.01952856034040451, 3.609580744523555e-4, 0.18741348385810852, -0.031893033534288406, -0.005430110730230808, -0.11334168910980225, -0.09376661479473114, -0.22464889287948608, -0.02412181720137596, 0.11692110449075699, -0.082957923412323, 0.17120452225208282, 0.027379505336284637, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.12009143829345703, -0.13825970888137817, -0.06552068144083023, -0.05016965791583061, -0.10196511447429657, 0.21548336744308472, -0.09951139241456985, 0.010078414343297482, -0.19111445546150208, 0.22054480016231537, 9.948601946234703e-4, 0.08922651410102844, -0.1223365068435669, -0.1519051343202591, -0.11325996369123459, 0.17257891595363617, -0.02343720756471157, 0.19433970749378204, -0.1939481645822525, -0.013184505514800549, 0.026313256472349167, 0.13586737215518951, -0.1969282478094101, -0.02714509516954422, 0.19399333000183105, 0.16326355934143066, 0.027006253600120544, 0.060699280351400375, -0.018484804779291153, 0.1208157166838646, -0.05933539569377899, -0.0028919766191393137, -0.09738168120384216, -0.15724553167819977, -0.18544085323810577, -0.040911879390478134, 0.08680912107229233, -0.05591604858636856, 0.13410714268684387, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >},
    "input_kernel" => {#Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.11286570131778717, -0.17360669374465942, 0.057255566120147705, 0.023582948371767998, -0.06937911361455917, -0.24815033376216888, 0.12512652575969696, -0.17670993506908417, -0.20432621240615845, 0.12909382581710815, -0.1008048728108406, -0.1284298598766327, -2.208939695265144e-4, -0.052660584449768066, -0.09486592561006546, -0.2177884727716446, -0.18822002410888672, 0.04439312219619751, -0.02581651881337166, 0.006469777785241604, -0.11090391129255295, -0.12962551414966583, -0.04170190915465355, 0.010889450088143349, -0.14027710258960724, 0.1267188936471939, 0.0775652676820755, -0.22248390316963196, 0.031248033046722412, 0.14513157308101654, -0.10671356320381165, 0.04589695855975151, -0.20222018659114838, -0.03888414800167084, -0.1475324034690857, -0.10675583779811859, 0.07477208971977234, -0.03487119451165199, -0.05257806554436684, -0.02220258302986622, -0.1543152630329132, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.10269846767187119, -0.19356945157051086, 0.038988854736089706, 0.04692873731255531, -0.09262625128030777, -0.2202702760696411, 0.15376737713813782, -0.1794195920228958, -0.17489083111286163, 0.18388015031814575, -0.06163577735424042, -0.07802878320217133, -0.009602018631994724, -0.07670570909976959, -0.08591438829898834, -0.24842551350593567, -0.15071730315685272, 0.03905174136161804, -1.726368209347129e-4, -0.0021030523348599672, -0.08747289329767227, -0.06520499289035797, -0.02984405867755413, 0.04839947074651718, -0.18231654167175293, 0.1494455188512802, 0.10598639398813248, -0.10910491645336151, 0.05341412499547005, 0.16125166416168213, -0.12752436101436615, 0.06215287372469902, -0.19265303015708923, -0.013847014866769314, -0.10505863279104233, -0.07062274217605591, 0.09253893047571182, -0.07755235582590103, -0.006070318631827831, 0.053436730057001114, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.0985768660902977, -0.183368980884552, 0.12819576263427734, 0.05133755877614021, -0.062357090413570404, -0.1552552729845047, 0.09399786591529846, -0.2327822744846344, -0.17439551651477814, 0.21944189071655273, -0.13007855415344238, -0.06162108853459358, 0.027802325785160065, -0.030088866129517555, -0.1507299691438675, -0.2069583386182785, -0.18347983062267303, 0.04535841569304466, 0.026792319491505623, -0.018548280000686646, -0.042035892605781555, -0.019694289192557335, 0.0027764032129198313, 0.038562171161174774, -0.13900354504585266, 0.14398539066314697, 0.1534835547208786, -0.10007795691490173, -0.023547274991869926, 0.10563834011554718, -0.16222384572029114, 0.09069915860891342, -0.16364656388759613, -0.04662363976240158, -0.07231176644563675, -0.08865834772586823, 0.018414463847875595, -0.015514612197875977, -0.08404996246099472, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >,
     #Nx.Tensor<
       f32[64][64]
       EXLA.Backend
       [
         [0.10291285067796707, -0.1892717182636261, 0.04138830304145813, 0.03471236303448677, -0.07724550366401672, -0.2436002939939499, 0.13199172914028168, -0.17936661839485168, -0.19920507073402405, 0.14984464645385742, -0.08855559676885605, -0.1099524274468422, -0.012858719564974308, -0.050450198352336884, -0.0915042906999588, -0.2416999787092209, -0.18063265085220337, 0.039740897715091705, -0.0068550375290215015, -0.007210593670606613, -0.11492466181516647, -0.11034692078828812, -0.03126983344554901, 0.028404293581843376, -0.15576502680778503, 0.14140303432941437, 0.08109426498413086, -0.18112613260746002, 0.04653167724609375, 0.14785988628864288, -0.12306075543165207, 0.06074719503521919, -0.19994089007377625, -0.04496604576706886, -0.12642665207386017, -0.09186664968729019, 0.08864154666662216, -0.05207080394029617, ...],
         ...
       ]
     >}
  },
  "lstm_1_c_hidden_state" => %{
    "key" => #Nx.Tensor<
      u32[2]
      EXLA.Backend
      [394706658, 1199433204]
    >
  },
  "lstm_1_h_hidden_state" => %{
    "key" => #Nx.Tensor<
      u32[2]
      EXLA.Backend
      [394706658, 1199433204]
    >
  },
  "lstm__c_hidden_state" => %{
    "key" => #Nx.Tensor<
      u32[2]
      EXLA.Backend
      [394706658, 1199348788]
    >
  },
  "lstm__h_hidden_state" => %{
    "key" => #Nx.Tensor<
      u32[2]
      EXLA.Backend
      [394706658, 1199348788]
    >
  }
}

model
|> Axon.Loop.evaluator()
|> Axon.Loop.metric(:accuracy)
|> Axon.Loop.run(test_pipeline, trained_model_state, compiler: EXLA)

16:37:13.448 [debug] Forwarding options: [compiler: EXLA] to JIT compiler
Batch: 30, accuracy: 0.7641129

%{
  0 => %{
    "accuracy" => #Nx.Tensor<
      f32
      EXLA.Backend
      0.7641128897666931
    >
  }
}