MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue.
I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television.
If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk.
Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles.
Life is short.
This movie is long.
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending.
Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard.
Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.
The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related.
The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role.
You can see the plot points a mile away.
The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense.
So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess.
Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture.
The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture.
This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more).
It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies.
On top of that, it's WAY too long.
If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does.
If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes.
Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy.
Skip it.
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made.
The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot!
Continuity was cast to the four winds.
Anybody catch the cannon sequence?
The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes.
Come on!
Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat!
Costumer must of been away or something.
Or just out of their mind!
This movie is flawed on many fronts.
Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history.
The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares.
This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.
As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology.
I later learned more about the history.
I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it.
Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.
Very disappointing - avoid it.
Slow and riddled with inaccuracy.
Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico.
James Arness as Jim Bowie.
Brian Keith as Davy Crockett.
Alec Baldwin as Col.
Travis.
Raul Julia as General Santa Anna.
This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler.
Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.
This film, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish.
The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day).
It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long.
Rating * out of **********.
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork;
Redford's film is a mediocrity.
He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story.
The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you.
Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful.
Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be.
None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery.
This movie was long and boring.
The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed.
How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background?
It doesn't fit.
I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt).
So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what.
It's very uninteresting.
We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl.
That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western.'
What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1.
Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.
Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies.
I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.
...
to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.
"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point.
Great landscapes, Redford acting well.
Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).
I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher.
Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life.
The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun.
All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.
The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.
Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)
I always felt that a good film should have a plot.
This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot.
This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever;
I was anxious for it to finally end.
However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long;
it felt like four hours.
Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict.
It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious."
So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action.
I actually hate most action films out today;
it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum.
Not much really happens in this movie.
However, the scenery and costumes were nice.

That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue.

I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television.

If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk.

Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles.

Life is short.

This movie is long.

This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending.

Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard.

Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.

The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related.

The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role.

You can see the plot points a mile away.

The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense.

So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.

Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess.

Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture.

The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture.

This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more).

It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies.

On top of that, it's WAY too long.

If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does.

If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes.

Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy.

Skip it.

While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made.

The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot!

Continuity was cast to the four winds.

Anybody catch the cannon sequence?

The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes.

Come on!

Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat!

Costumer must of been away or something.

Or just out of their mind!

This movie is flawed on many fronts.

Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history.

The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares.

This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.

As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology.

I later learned more about the history.

I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it.

Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.

Very disappointing - avoid it.

Slow and riddled with inaccuracy.

Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico.

James Arness as Jim Bowie.

Brian Keith as Davy Crockett.

Alec Baldwin as Col.

Travis.

Raul Julia as General Santa Anna.

This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler.

Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.

This film, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish.

The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day).

It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long.

Rating * out of **********.

The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork;

Redford's film is a mediocrity.

He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story.

The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you.

Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful.

Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be.

None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.

The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery.

This movie was long and boring.

The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed.

How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background?

It doesn't fit.

I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt).

So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what.

It's very uninteresting.

We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl.

That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western.'

What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1.

Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.

Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies.

I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.

...

to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.

"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point.

Great landscapes, Redford acting well.

Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).

I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher.

Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life.

The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun.

All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.

The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.

Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)

I always felt that a good film should have a plot.

This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot.

This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever;

I was anxious for it to finally end.

However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long;

it felt like four hours.

Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict.

It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious."

So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action.

I actually hate most action films out today;

it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum.

Not much really happens in this movie.

However, the scenery and costumes were nice.