Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js

from 9/16/21 lecture, UMass CS 490A

import glob
pos_texts = [open(f).read() for f in glob.glob("large_movie_review_dataset/test/pos/*.txt")]
neg_texts = [open(f).read() for f in glob.glob("large_movie_review_dataset/test/neg/*.txt")]
labels_and_texts = []
for text in pos_texts:
    labels_and_texts.append(("pos", text))
for text in neg_texts:
    labels_and_texts.append(("neg", text))

labels_and_texts[3]

('pos',
 'This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960\'s acid-trip film that was in it\'s place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney\'s greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"')

def tokenize(text):
    """returns list of tokens (note diff than hw1)"""
    tokens = re.split(r'\W+', text.lower())
    tokens = [w for w in tokens if w]   # remove empty tokens
    return tokens

tokenize(labels_and_texts[3][1])

['this',
 'is',
 'the',
 'best',
 '3',
 'd',
 'experience',
 'disney',
 'has',
 'at',
 'their',
 'themeparks',
 'this',
 'is',
 'certainly',
 'better',
 'than',
 'their',
 'original',
 '1960',
 's',
 'acid',
 'trip',
 'film',
 'that',
 'was',
 'in',
 'it',
 's',
 'place',
 'is',
 'leagues',
 'better',
 'than',
 'honey',
 'i',
 'shrunk',
 'the',
 'audience',
 'and',
 'far',
 'more',
 'fun',
 'barely',
 'squeaks',
 'by',
 'the',
 'muppetvision',
 '3',
 'd',
 'movie',
 'at',
 'disney',
 'mgm',
 'and',
 'can',
 'even',
 'beat',
 'the',
 'original',
 '3',
 'd',
 'movie',
 'experience',
 'captain',
 'eo',
 'this',
 'film',
 'relives',
 'some',
 'of',
 'disney',
 's',
 'greatest',
 'musical',
 'hits',
 'from',
 'aladdin',
 'the',
 'little',
 'mermaid',
 'and',
 'others',
 'and',
 'brought',
 'a',
 'smile',
 'to',
 'my',
 'face',
 'throughout',
 'the',
 'entire',
 'show',
 'this',
 'is',
 'a',
 'totally',
 'kid',
 'friendly',
 'movie',
 'too',
 'unlike',
 'honey',
 'and',
 'has',
 'more',
 'effects',
 'than',
 'the',
 'spectacular',
 'muppetvision']

pos_keywords = """
happy 
Woohoo
Happy
exciting
"thrilling
exciting
enticing"
happy, yay, good, great, awesome, wow
Happy, Amazing, cool
happy
happy
"fantastic
amazing
incredible"
awesome, happy fabulous, exciting, nice, good
"good
exciting
action-packed
engaging"
"pleasant
cool
amazing"
"good
great
nice
happy
enthusiastic
amazing
brilliant
thrilling
fantastic
perfect"
"happy
happily
excited
awesome
amazing
wonderful
wonderfully
best
like
liked
enjoy
enjoyed
terrific
accurate
good"
great, awesome, terrific
love
great
"Good
Exciting
Happy"
"exciting
joy
awesome"
GREAT
"fun
entertaining
funny"
"cool
fun
lovely
superb
amazing"
"terrific
smile
laughing
outstanding"
"happiness
great
good
hopeful"
"awesome
ideal
great
perfect"
good, fun, great
"good
great
happy
excited
excellent
amazing
"
"good
great
awesome
wonderful
delightful
splendid
nice
happy
glad 
relieved
thrilled 
excited"
Happy, grateful, joyous, momentous, smiling, giddy, genuine,  
"joy
comfy
sunshine"
"spectacular
amazing
fantastic"
"good
nice
fun
enjoyable
awesome
cool
nice
chill
wonderful
like
liked
loved
love
amazing"
"happy
delicious
amazing
awesome
breathtaking
beautiful
terrific"
"Amazing
Beautiful "
"positive
fun
lit
bussin
throbbing
sweet
fire
drip
cool
chill
live
laugh
love
based"
"Best
Awesome
Stellar"
"sick
wonderful
delightful"
"wow
yay
awesome
love
amazing
yes"
"good
well-written
better"
Terrific
"smile
happy
fun
hehe
haha
poggers"
"incredible
amazing
slaps
interesting
perfect"
"Happy
Exciting
Great
Lovely
Terrific"
"Awesome
Excited
Giddy
Fantastic"
acclaimed, interesting, captivating
"good
insane
significant"
"Fun
Entertaining
Yay"
"good
great
excellent
superb
best
terrific
awesome
quality"
"ecstatic
fabulous
wonderful"
happy
Happy
"amazing
exciting
fantastic"
Happy, positive, compelling
"Fun 
Hurray"
"Perfect
Yeah
Yes
Happy
Wonderful"
terrific, amazing, happy, high, awesome
"excellent 
engaging 
hilarious 
moving \
beautiful"
Yes
"good
nice
great
"
"good
great
awesome
best
amazing
incredible
bright
happy
joy
"""

pos_keywords = set(tokenize(pos_keywords))

neg_keywords = """
sad
Poopoo
Angry
depressed
"boring
bad
slow"
hate, negative, bad, sucks, boo, ew, no
Sad, ungreatful, moody
"bad
terrible"
sad
"awful
bad
sucks"
sad, dirty, aggressive 
"slow
plodding
mind-numbing"
"nasty
terrible
atrocious"
"bad
boring
confusing
bland
atrocious
ugly
flawed"
"bad
ugly
terrible
unclear
inaccurate"
trash, worst, repugnant
moody
fk
"Worst
Bad
Hate
poor"
"depressing
upset
angry"
DAMN
"boring
slow
terrible"
"terrible
bad
terrible
horrendous
horrible"
"disgusting
repulsive
diabolical
nasty"
"490a
loneliness
okay
unlikely"
"awful
horrible"
bad, awful, boring
"not
bad
gross
horrible
never
terrible
disgusting
horrid
"
"bad 
sad
mad
angry
unfortunately
gloomy
bleak
dismal"
Awful, disgusting, mean, disingenuous, hatred, disgust, 
"cruel
bad
manipulation"
"terrible
horrible
mediocre"
"hated
suck
sucked
bad
worst
awful
nasty
expensive
annoying
boring
long
arduous"
"boring
mind-numbing
ugly"
"Atrocious 
Horrible"
"negative
cringe
yucky
icky
ew
gross
stinky
stanky"
"Bad
Awful
Worthless"
"trash
sick
useless"
"worst
boo
no
gross"
"abhor
lacked
disliked
"
Abysmal
"sadge
not
sad
mad
bad"
"horrible
trash
garbage
hate
worst"
"bad
sad
eww
poor
Terrifying"
"Terrible
Sad
Somber"
Sad, boring, bland
"bad
terrible"
"Boring
lame"
"bad
trash
junk
terrible
atrocious
awful"
"goose
malignant
maleficent "
bad
Stupid
"boring
tragic
terrible"
bad, sad, negative
"Terrible 
No 
"
"Sad
Damn
Hate"
bad, terrible, low, poor, sucks
"terrible 
boring 
bad
offensive 
pointless"
No
"bad
awful"
"bad
sad
mad
crass
anger
unhappy
rage
"""

neg_keywords = set(tokenize(neg_keywords))
neg_keywords = {w for w in neg_keywords if w not in ('490a','no','not')  } 
neg_keywords

{'abhor',
 'abysmal',
 'aggressive',
 'anger',
 'angry',
 'annoying',
 'arduous',
 'atrocious',
 'awful',
 'bad',
 'bland',
 'bleak',
 'boo',
 'boring',
 'confusing',
 'crass',
 'cringe',
 'cruel',
 'damn',
 'depressed',
 'depressing',
 'diabolical',
 'dirty',
 'disgust',
 'disgusting',
 'disingenuous',
 'disliked',
 'dismal',
 'ew',
 'eww',
 'expensive',
 'fk',
 'flawed',
 'garbage',
 'gloomy',
 'goose',
 'gross',
 'hate',
 'hated',
 'hatred',
 'horrendous',
 'horrible',
 'horrid',
 'icky',
 'inaccurate',
 'junk',
 'lacked',
 'lame',
 'loneliness',
 'long',
 'low',
 'mad',
 'maleficent',
 'malignant',
 'manipulation',
 'mean',
 'mediocre',
 'mind',
 'moody',
 'nasty',
 'negative',
 'never',
 'numbing',
 'offensive',
 'okay',
 'plodding',
 'pointless',
 'poopoo',
 'poor',
 'rage',
 'repugnant',
 'repulsive',
 'sad',
 'sadge',
 'sick',
 'slow',
 'somber',
 'stanky',
 'stinky',
 'stupid',
 'suck',
 'sucked',
 'sucks',
 'terrible',
 'terrifying',
 'tragic',
 'trash',
 'ugly',
 'unclear',
 'unfortunately',
 'ungreatful',
 'unhappy',
 'unlikely',
 'upset',
 'useless',
 'worst',
 'worthless',
 'yucky'}

num_correct = 0
for label,text in labels_and_texts[-50:]:
#     print(label); print(text)
    tokens = tokenize(text)
#     print(tokens)
    pos_words = [w for w in tokens if w in pos_keywords]
    neg_words = [w for w in tokens if w in neg_keywords]
#     print("POS",pos_words)
#     print("NEG",neg_words)
#     print("GOLD LABEL",label)
    num_pos = len(pos_words)
    num_neg = len(neg_words)
    pred = 'pos' if num_pos > num_neg else 'neg'
#     print("GOLD=", label,  "PRED=", pred)
    num_correct += int( label==pred )
    
    if pred != label:
        print(label, num_pos,num_neg, "\n", text)
num_correct
    

neg 4 3 
 I had no idea this movie was produced by "WWE". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..
neg 6 0 
 Given this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.
neg 13 5 
 Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?<br /><br />HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies. <br /><br />The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable. <br /><br />The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect. <br /><br />Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.
neg 5 4 
 While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.
neg 11 2 
 I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.<br /><br />The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.<br /><br />Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.<br /><br />Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...<br /><br />On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.
neg 3 0 
 This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.
neg 7 1 
 This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.
neg 7 4 
 It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.<br /><br />As I read somewhere, "You can't fix it in the cutting room", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.<br /><br />However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.<br /><br />And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??<br /><br />Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!
neg 9 1 
 Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.<br /><br />Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".
neg 1 0 
 This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.
neg 5 2 
 Lil Pimp is the story of a little boy who becomes a pimp. The animation and voice acting were perfect for this type of film.<br /><br />I laughed out loud for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie; mostly at the concept. After that, the joke wore thin. As a 15-20 minute animated short, Lil Pimp would have been a classic. Instead, this movie consists entirely of one joke that lasts far too long.<br /><br />Weathers, voiced by Ludicrous, does have several crude and funny one-liners. Unfortunately, that is all the boy's pet rat is good for as he contributes nothing else to the story. Eventually, I grew as bored with his remarks as I did the rest of this movie.<br /><br />I am a big fan of South Park, and other animation aimed at adults. I also play several online pimp games, so I am partial to stories about pimps. The transition from little boy to lil pimp was brilliant; but after that, both the story and dialog became redundant and predictable.<br /><br />I give this movie a five. It is worth watching for the great concept and voice acting. Just do not expect much else or you will be quite disappointed.
neg 6 2 
 I watched this movie at a party, we were very puzzled by the ending, it ended rather poor. even though the entire movie isn't too amazing, i was expecting something slightly better. This movie is pure trash, but i suggest you watch it if you find cheap horror films with a weak script quite funny. Personally I loved the advert, it was my overall highlight, the fighting scenes were basic, a shot of a knife, some shadows in a window, fake blood. I must say the Granny costume was quite scary, This film is a mixture of kill joy, camp blood and boggy creek 2,except this film has slightly better camera wok and colour treatment compared with camp blood.
neg 7 2 
 Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.<br /><br />Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.<br /><br />Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.<br /><br />Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.<br /><br />For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.<br /><br />Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10
neg 7 1 
 On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.<br /><br />Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees". <br /><br />Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.<br /><br />I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.<br /><br />The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.
neg 3 1 
 A dark, yet humorous tale involving a cop who has a first hand experience with vampires and decides he must quit his job to pursue these evil beings.Most of the film contained questionable acting,plot, props, and filming. The fight scenes were as hokey as a middle schooler's rendition of a WWII battle. The lines delivered were spoken as if the actors had no motivation for being there. The props were bad because they did not even look like they could function in the slightest amount. the majority of the film appeared to be shot in someones basement (in some scenes you could see the rafters overhead in a scene that was not supposed to look like that of a basement). The plot had no motivation to move forward or go backwards, it just appeared to stand still at times with no reason for some characters actions. I felt at times the sounds effects were out of place for this horror type genre and more of a cartoon series. It is similar to the movie Blade, in that he is an African American vampire hunter. However, that is where all similarities end, and the movie looks closer to a Saturday Night Live spoof.
neg 10 6 
 Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was "okay". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of "Kill Bill". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.
neg 6 2 
 So many bad reviewers, it made me wonder, what people are thinking while watching a simple flick made by a quite bad director??? Did you all expected a super-hit flawless movie?? No way, you already can see, Raj Kumar Kohli loves multi-starrer movies... All of his earlier works where multi-starrers, but no one was flawless. Take the first Jaani Dushman for instance, so many flaws, but still good fun. Anyways sticking to the movie, the movie Jaani Dushman is a Hindi fantasy film about a snake, who can take any form (Armaan (Munish) Kohli) which takes revenge for the suicide of its lover (Manisha Koirala) on the people who caused it. Its quite good, with a great star-cast. But i think it could have been much much better. For instance, take the script, can't say its flawless. For example Take the ages:<br /><br />Do 40-48 yrs old still study in university??<br /><br />There are many many more, i won't list more, but there are dozen more. A solid 5.5 is good for this one.<br /><br />**.75
neg 2 0 
 This show lasted for most of the 1980s, and had its moments, but plots were usually dishwater thin and often painfully unfunny.<br /><br />Terry Scott and June Whitfield were wasted in this sitcom, they both deserved better, but it does provide some fond memories and I have found myself smiling at some repeated scenes. June Whitfield's talent for comedy is allowed to shine through on occasion (when she is not being a foil to Terry) and she really is clever.<br /><br />The 1980s is the last decade where you will find this kind of middle class, middle aged comedy, and many people remember it fondly, but I prefer to remember the decade for alternative comedy and the biting satire of Spitting Image.
neg 10 7 
 Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.<br /><br />The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like "Gone With the Wind"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.<br /><br />Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song ("He's Moving On").<br /><br />It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.<br /><br />Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.
neg 2 1 
 Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.
neg 5 3 
 There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.<br /><br />But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.
neg 3 0 
 My friends and I rented this movie mistaking it for another one about skateboarding. Watchin Steve Guttenberg as an action hero is hilarious. The movie is so incredibly predictable and over the top that it ended up being a laugh fest. Even though I gave it a 1/10 this movie should be seen especially if u manage to catch it on TV anywhere.
neg 9 6 
 I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.<br /><br />Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.<br /><br />Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...<br /><br />On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.<br /><br />Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.<br /><br />It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.
neg 7 4 
 Loving the Andersen fairy tails as a child and recently having seen some intriguing documentaries on this odd, though brilliant, author, I eagerly looked forward to see this made-for-TV film. Unfortunately the experience was nothing but a disappointment leaving me in anger and confusion. First of all the story/script is filled with inaccuracies and downright fantasies and in this way creating almost a completely new story while shamefully abusing Andersen's fairy tales, presumably in order to sell the crap to suckers like me. Secondly, pretty-boy actor (really... ever seen a picture of the real Andersen?) Kieran Brew manages to portray Hans Christian as mentally retarded rather than the brilliant though very disturbed character he indeed was. Though annoying and irritating like Andersen, Brew is missing the required charisma to create any feelings of compassion what so ever. Thirdly. The love story between Andersen and the fictional Jetta (whom actually should be Henriette, the wife of Edvard Collin)... Why? This man has lived such an interesting life, it should be enough as a foundation to a great movie!<br /><br />I could continue this to be a very long list but feel it safest to simply recommend all of you to spend your time and money on something else instead.
neg 9 5 
 Like a lot of people, I loved the original; "American Graffiti" was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, "More American Graffiti" is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as "Laurie's" character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and "Terry the Toad" and "Pharaoh Joe" somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of "Falfa" (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a "cameo". He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.<br /><br />The operative word here is "funny". This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become "Rainbow", yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.<br /><br />Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.<br /><br />The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie "American Graffiti" was and avoid the movie with "More" in the title.
neg 11 0 
 This movie should have been called "The Eyes of Alexander", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.<br /><br />Yours, Nick
neg 4 2 
 When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.<br /><br />Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.<br /><br />The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.<br /><br />I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.
neg 2 0 
 Well, this movie actually did have one redeeming quality. It made up the funniest season one episode of MST3K. I wish Rhino had released this one instead of "The Crawling Hand."

22

num_correct / len(labels_and_texts)

0.65368

1e-100 * 1e-100 * 1e-100 * 1e-100 * 1e-100

0.0

1e-350

0.0