MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros.
retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.
She decided to take the money.
But her career suffered accordingly.
That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway."
(Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target.
The murder trial.
Her seedy vaudeville career.
Her success in London.
Her final scene with her daughter.
No part logically leads to the next part.
Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff.
And her hair!
Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month.
Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.
When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether.
While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land.
The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier;
she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart.
The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless.
Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope.
Don't waste your time with this movie;
read the book instead.
One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen.
I wanted to vomit after watching it.
I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's.
What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding.
Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom.
The story itself was OK.
The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy.
They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's.
But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.
I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie?
Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era would it make for good viewing?
Honestly, I don't know.
I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen.
From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland.
Was it good?
Was it bad?
That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated!
This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes.
Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole.
I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale.
I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind.
The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America.
It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television).
There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story.
Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.
While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side.
Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall.
The two as actors have no chemistry at all.
Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion.
The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it.
The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done.
This is love?
Was it supposed to be love?
I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts.
Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene.
The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married!
It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.
Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature.
There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation.
These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers.
While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more.
Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story.
Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters.
Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast.
Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.
Grade: out of ***
That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it.
He wasn't able to keep from dozing off.
I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring."
Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work.
Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody.
Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable.
It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage.
I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is.
Don't believe me?
Gather 'round.
Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner.
But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles?
You'll find that here.
GET IT?
THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate.
Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke?
It's not even close to "cleverly offensive."
It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face.
In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball.
Okay- are you ready?
The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY.
Why did I write that in caps also?
Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags.
They start off mediocre enough;
glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering...
then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF.
You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on.
In the very next- the shoes are off!!!

The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.

I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros.

retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.

She decided to take the money.

But her career suffered accordingly.

That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway."

(Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target.

The murder trial.

Her seedy vaudeville career.

Her success in London.

Her final scene with her daughter.

No part logically leads to the next part.

Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff.

And her hair!

Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month.

Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.

When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether.

While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land.

The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier;

she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart.

The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless.

Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope.

Don't waste your time with this movie;

read the book instead.

One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen.

I wanted to vomit after watching it.

I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's.

What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding.

Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom.

The story itself was OK.

The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy.

They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's.

But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.

I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie?

Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era would it make for good viewing?

Honestly, I don't know.

I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen.

From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland.

Was it good?

Was it bad?

That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated!

This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes.

Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole.

I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale.

I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind.

The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America.

It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television).

There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story.

Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.

While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side.

Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall.

The two as actors have no chemistry at all.

Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion.

The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it.

The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done.

This is love?

Was it supposed to be love?

I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts.

Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene.

The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married!

It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.

Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature.

There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation.

These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers.

While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more.

Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story.

Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters.

Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast.

Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.

Grade: ** out of *****

That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it.

He wasn't able to keep from dozing off.

I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring."

Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work.

Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody.

Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable.

It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage.

I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is.

Don't believe me?

Gather 'round.

Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner.

But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles?

You'll find that here.

GET IT?

THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate.

Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke?

It's not even close to "cleverly offensive."

It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face.

In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball.

Okay- are you ready?

The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY.

Why did I write that in caps also?

Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags.

They start off mediocre enough;

glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering...

then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF.

You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on.

In the very next- the shoes are off!!!