MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral.
I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral.
Again, I was disappointed.
Foxx was annoying.
Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot.
Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh.
Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second.
Fuqua should have stopped this immediately.
Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of.
Instead of character development, he would crack a joke.
Neither style worked, no joke was funny.
The rest of the cast was average.
By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles.
They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film.
They were pawns filling in dead air space.
Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.
Overall, this was a sad film.
With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand.
Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese.
In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues.
Are my words harsh?
I don't think so.
When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home.
Bait contained none of these.
While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous.
Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.
Grade: out of *** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)
Ah, Bait.
How do I hate thee?
Let me count the ways.
You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable;
every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter.
Instead, I want to hurl.
You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable;
the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...
well, Bill Gates.
(Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun.
Doesn't work, does it?
A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun.
Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl.
You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times.
And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl.
You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED!
I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company.
This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...
just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic.
With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low.
I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).
The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong.
This is a highschoolers approach to cinema.
For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...
well...
hmmm.
If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests.
It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one.
As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen.
All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.
The movie had the potential to be something great.
The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with.
But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.
My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition.
Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic;
Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins.
As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect.
The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album.
No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.
I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week.
My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too.
I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.
Boy, was I disappointed.
This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable.
George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time.
The rest of the time he was quite flat.
I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part.
But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.
The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.
I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end.
That was a refreshing portrayal.
I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden.
And Tiny Tim...
oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...
Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance.
His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film.
Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better.
When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing.
I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version.
Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed.
Very disappointing.
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was.
Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly.
Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!"
Other times I almost fell asleep.
The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug.
After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.
I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated.
Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged.
That at least, was funny...
When will the hurting stop?

I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral.

I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral.

Again, I was disappointed.

Foxx was annoying.

Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot.

Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh.

Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second.

Fuqua should have stopped this immediately.

Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of.

Instead of character development, he would crack a joke.

Neither style worked, no joke was funny.

The rest of the cast was average.

By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles.

They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film.

They were pawns filling in dead air space.

Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.

Overall, this was a sad film.

With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand.

Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese.

In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues.

Are my words harsh?

I don't think so.

When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home.

Bait contained none of these.

While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous.

Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.

Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)

Ah, Bait.

How do I hate thee?

Let me count the ways.

You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable;

every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter.

Instead, I want to hurl.

You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable;

the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...

well, Bill Gates.

(Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun.

Doesn't work, does it?

A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun.

Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl.

You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times.

And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl.

You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED!

I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company.

This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...

just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.

The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic.

With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low.

I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).

The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong.

This is a highschoolers approach to cinema.

For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...

well...

hmmm.

If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests.

It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one.

As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen.

All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.

The movie had the potential to be something great.

The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with.

But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.

My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition.

Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.

Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic;

Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins.

As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect.

The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album.

No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.

I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week.

My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too.

I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.

Boy, was I disappointed.

This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable.

George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time.

The rest of the time he was quite flat.

I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part.

But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.

The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.

I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end.

That was a refreshing portrayal.

I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden.

And Tiny Tim...

oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...

Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance.

His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film.

Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better.

When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing.

I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version.

Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed.

Very disappointing.

Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was.

Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly.

Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!"

Other times I almost fell asleep.

The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug.

After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.

I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated.

Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged.

That at least, was funny...

When will the hurting stop?