MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels?
In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why?
I have no idea.
Must be the Jewish theme
This game was made by Sega.
Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either.
For starters the camera angles work against you in this game.
The motorcycle is your means of getting around.
The motorcycle is the worst part in the game.
Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move.
You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter.
The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him.
The graphics are horrible.
You ride through trees on your bike.
The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible.
This game wouldn't even be worth renting.
We don't have this on television in England but I walked it over the Internet on YouTube.
It's dumb, immature and boring!
This is from the creator of "Earthworm Jim" Douglas TenNapel, I never got into that cartoon but I must admit it better than this.
The cartoonist hasn't done anything for years since now.
For Doug TenNapel, this is a comeback travesty and an all time low!
The story is about three cats who inherit a house and lots of money off their dead old lady master.
They are argumentative and keep on disagreeing on what their want to spend their money on.
"BORING!"
The animation is dreadful.
The main characters are meant to be cats, right?
But they don't look nothing like cats!
Just weird animal monster-looking creatures with big mouths, pointed teeth and bulgy eyes!
The human and other animal characters are also drawn real ugly!
The theme song is terrible and irritating!
Also the stories are lame and are most probably copied from older shows.
It surprised me how this show got 7.5/10 votes of other IMDb viewers.
Television really isn't what is used to be!
But now most of them is dumb, cheaply made and boring.
Some of you on the website might not agree with me well I'm sorry but this is a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that Britain don't have too tolerate this crap (oh yeah, if you have digital you have to) but I don't, so it not my problem!
Loser!
2/10 (and it's very lucky to get that because I've given other shows worst!).
HERE BE SPOILERS Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday.
She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén).
Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away.
Mia is still single and is focused on her career.
There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle.
As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...
Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years.
There are really no new elements or ideas.
This movie draws upon three basic areas.
1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves.
2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety.
This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along.
No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny.
The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten.
I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none.
To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.
3/10
Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years.
I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show.
Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993.
He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking.
His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
This is an "anthology" horror film.
It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho").
The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all.
It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors."
Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt).
I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt."
The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name.
So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee.
But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together.
Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves.
So let's take them one at a time, briefly.
The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character.
Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror.
There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist.
It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!"
The second story is the one with Peter Cushing.
God I love that man so much.
Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink.
In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum.
It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.
Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch.
Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs.
But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil.
The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.
The last story is kind of amusing...
Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire.
That's about all the story has to offer.
I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.
Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
(Spoilers) I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty.
I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.
The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience.
What made me dislike the whole film were two things.
First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.
Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.
Too bad.
If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer.
What's the question?"
, then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian.
Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel."
Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption.

Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels?

In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why?

I have no idea.

Must be the Jewish theme

This game was made by Sega.

Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either.

For starters the camera angles work against you in this game.

The motorcycle is your means of getting around.

The motorcycle is the worst part in the game.

Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move.

You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter.

The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him.

The graphics are horrible.

You ride through trees on your bike.

The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible.

This game wouldn't even be worth renting.

We don't have this on television in England but I walked it over the Internet on YouTube.

It's dumb, immature and boring!

This is from the creator of "Earthworm Jim" Douglas TenNapel, I never got into that cartoon but I must admit it better than this.

The cartoonist hasn't done anything for years since now.

For Doug TenNapel, this is a comeback travesty and an all time low!

The story is about three cats who inherit a house and lots of money off their dead old lady master.

They are argumentative and keep on disagreeing on what their want to spend their money on.

"BORING!"

The animation is dreadful.

The main characters are meant to be cats, right?

But they don't look nothing like cats!

Just weird animal monster-looking creatures with big mouths, pointed teeth and bulgy eyes!

The human and other animal characters are also drawn real ugly!

The theme song is terrible and irritating!

Also the stories are lame and are most probably copied from older shows.

It surprised me how this show got 7.5/10 votes of other IMDb viewers.

Television really isn't what is used to be!

But now most of them is dumb, cheaply made and boring.

Some of you on the website might not agree with me well I'm sorry but this is a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that Britain don't have too tolerate this crap (oh yeah, if you have digital you have to) but I don't, so it not my problem!

Loser!

2/10 (and it's very lucky to get that because I've given other shows worst!).

** HERE BE SPOILERS ** Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday.

She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén).

Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away.

Mia is still single and is focused on her career.

There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle.

As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...

Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years.

There are really no new elements or ideas.

This movie draws upon three basic areas.

1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves.

2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety.

This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along.

No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny.

The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten.

I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none.

To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.

3/10

Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years.

I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show.

Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993.

He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking.

His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.

This is an "anthology" horror film.

It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho").

The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all.

It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors."

Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt).

I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt."

The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name.

So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee.

But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together.

Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves.

So let's take them one at a time, briefly.

The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character.

Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror.

There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist.

It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!"

The second story is the one with Peter Cushing.

God I love that man so much.

Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink.

In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum.

It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.

Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch.

Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs.

But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil.

The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.

The last story is kind of amusing...

Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire.

That's about all the story has to offer.

I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.

Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.

(Spoilers) I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty.

I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.

The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience.

What made me dislike the whole film were two things.

First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.

Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.

Too bad.

If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer.

What's the question?"

, then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian.

Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel."

Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption.