MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
As painful as any fight scene ever recorded.
Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight.
In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann.
What a great, great director.
See every western he ever made.
They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy.
But so what.
When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford.
And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.
Thanks, Anthony.
Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do.
But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town?
Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush.
Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.
Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.
This is an action Western.
James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor.
The scenery and costumes are great.
There is action and adventure.
Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.
The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero.
Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces.
He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.
However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him.
He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).
Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable.
Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.
This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies.
Once again it doesn't make since.
The killer still kills for fun.
But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie.
Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.
Don't watch this.
If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it.
You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it.
Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.
Don't let your children watch this.
Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's.
It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday.
I regret for watching it.
The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted.
The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original.
Ugh.
The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.
The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.
My advice is : avoid this one at all costs.
It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone.
Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.
You have been warned.
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.
Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..
looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight.
Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..
played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production.
Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film.
The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth.
Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..
that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is.
Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..
what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path?
The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller.
Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..
quite a hard pill to swallow).
Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..
such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress.
This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.
Return to Cabin by the Lake just....
was lacking.
It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera.
So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots.
It makes for a very odd blend!
I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect!
I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences.
But if you haven't seen the original CBTL....
you'll never want to see it if you see this one first!
It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film.
The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not.
The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.
The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video.
You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second.
I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.
Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider.
I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth.
Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it.
I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie.
It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours.
Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things;
utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it.
Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel.
It came on right after the first one.
For some reason this movie kept me interested.
I don't know why, stop asking.
---SPOILERS--- Okay...
It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie.
In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason.
Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast?

As painful as any fight scene ever recorded.

Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight.

In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann.

What a great, great director.

See every western he ever made.

They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy.

But so what.

When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford.

And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.

Thanks, Anthony.

Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do.

But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town?

Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush.

Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.

Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.

This is an action Western.

James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor.

The scenery and costumes are great.

There is action and adventure.

Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.

The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero.

Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces.

He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.

However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him.

He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).

Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable.

Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.

This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies.

Once again it doesn't make since.

The killer still kills for fun.

But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie.

Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.

Don't watch this.

If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it.

You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it.

Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.

Don't let your children watch this.

Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.

Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's.

It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday.

I regret for watching it.

The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted.

The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original.

Ugh.

The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.

The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.

My advice is : avoid this one at all costs.

It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone.

Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.

You have been warned.

Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.

Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..

looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight.

Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..

played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production.

Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film.

The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth.

Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..

that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is.

Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..

what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path?

The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller.

Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..

quite a hard pill to swallow).

Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..

such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress.

This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.

Return to Cabin by the Lake just....

was lacking.

It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera.

So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots.

It makes for a very odd blend!

I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect!

I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences.

But if you haven't seen the original CBTL....

you'll never want to see it if you see this one first!

It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.

This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film.

The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not.

The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.

The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video.

You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second.

I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.

Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.

IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider.

I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth.

Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it.

I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie.

It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours.

Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things;

utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it.

Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!

I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel.

It came on right after the first one.

For some reason this movie kept me interested.

I don't know why, stop asking.

---SPOILERS--- Okay...

It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie.

In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason.

Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast?