MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
just ...
can't recommend it.
1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.
From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it.
And he has failed in it very badly.
I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie.
Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort.
In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this.
Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie.
And the actors also have given a decent performance.
I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about.
To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense.
The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!!
He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird.
But still hot.
However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film.
I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence.
Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?
The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.
All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic.
That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it.
LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was.
Oh yeah the cast was Hot.
The girls were HOT!!!
But CHACE IS THE BEST!!
This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another.
He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him.
His master scheme seems to back fire on him.
Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller.
Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.
If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it.
Unfortuntately this is not the case.
It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.
The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished.
I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street.
Excellent.
A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down.
Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.
The film.
Oh dear.
Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it.
A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...
yes.
An adaptation of 'Union Street.'..
no.
The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded.
I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue.
The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.
If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List.'..
but without the happy ending.
I saw the capsule comment said "great acting."
In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort.
Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time.
Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written.
Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing.
Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer."
I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.
Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time.
This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting.
The script is unbelievable.
The dialog is unbelievable.
Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one.
The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy.
It also plugs in every cliche in the book.
Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?
Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review.
When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape.
Avoid this movie.
Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig.
Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy.
A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers.
Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting.
Even those from the era should be turned off.
The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader.
On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond.
Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.
Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork?
While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more.
If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child.
Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style.
You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles.
Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait.
While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments.
If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait.
While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera.
Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of " film lists.
I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique.
His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking.
I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon.
Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness.
Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end.
In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work.
Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created.
The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood.
We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel.
It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait.
I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film.
I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.
Then, there was the acting.
While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try.

just ...

can't recommend it.

1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.

From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it.

And he has failed in it very badly.

I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie.

Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort.

In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this.

Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie.

And the actors also have given a decent performance.

I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about.

To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense.

The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!!

He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird.

But still hot.

However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film.

I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence.

Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?

The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.

All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic.

That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it.

LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was.

Oh yeah the cast was Hot.

The girls were HOT!!!

But CHACE IS THE BEST!!

This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another.

He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him.

His master scheme seems to back fire on him.

Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller.

Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.

If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it.

Unfortuntately this is not the case.

It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.

The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished.

I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street.

Excellent.

A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down.

Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.

The film.

Oh dear.

Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it.

A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...

yes.

An adaptation of 'Union Street.'..

no.

The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded.

I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue.

The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.

If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List.'..

but without the happy ending.

I saw the capsule comment said "great acting."

In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort.

Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time.

Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written.

Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing.

Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer."

I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.

Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time.

This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting.

The script is unbelievable.

The dialog is unbelievable.

Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one.

The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy.

It also plugs in every cliche in the book.

Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?

Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review.

When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape.

Avoid this movie.

Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig.

Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy.

A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers.

Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting.

Even those from the era should be turned off.

The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader.

On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond.

Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.

Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork?

While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more.

If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child.

Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style.

You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles.

Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait.

While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments.

If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait.

While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera.

Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of " film lists.

I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique.

His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking.

I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon.

Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness.

Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end.

In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work.

Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created.

The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood.

We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel.

It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait.

I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film.

I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.

Then, there was the acting.

While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try.