MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated.
Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.
The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility.
I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently;
that's another lame director who writes inept scripts.
Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway."
There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.
Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker.
However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious."
Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language.
After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.
I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...
Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/
This film is predictable;
it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets.
One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film.
The politics reminds me when I was back east.
Many people know when the fix is in.
I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
This movie had the potential to be far more than it was.
But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.
John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil.
The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.
Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck.
He's good as usual but hardly standout.
Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story.
Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.
People don't act this way.
Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous.
The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound.
It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.
This is a bad, by the numbers movie.
It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour.
Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.
Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure.
He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably.
I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem.
An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller.
It's not.
City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind.
In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc.
And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen!
But again, it really doesn't.
Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society.
But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal.
I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.
Wow.
This is really not that good.
I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good...
it is, but it is nothing special.
The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.
/***
I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers.
It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption.
It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense.
We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes.
The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way.
All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola.
"Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential."
Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC.
You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour.
The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable.
A horrible movie.
> What a dud.
It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered.
John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino.
His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films.
This was > one.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic.
However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.
BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more.
It was subtle.
It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death.
There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain.
It was balanced.
Disney's edit of Earth is none of this.
They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about.
They made it DRAMATIC.
They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us.
They made predators evil.
They made WALRUSES evil.
They showed every encounter as negative.
It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance.
The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.
I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.
That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality.
It looked better on my TV at home.
If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series.
It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.
I can't believe I am so angry after seeing this that I am about to write my first ever review on IMDb.
This Disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed Planet Earth lite.
Now I knew going into this that it was advertised as "from the people who brought you Planet Earth," but I had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini-series.
I just paid $8.75 to see something I already own on DVD.
Shame on Disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a James Earl Jones voice-over and 90 seconds of sailfish that I don't believe were in Planet Earth).
But the biggest crime of all, is that while Planet Earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change, Disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe.
After the male polar bear's demise, they show his cubs grown significantly a year later, and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory, and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all.
No mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured, no warning of trouble for future generations if we don't get our act together, nothing.
Just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more, if you are one of the billion people who have already seen Planet Earth).
I have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life.

concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated.

Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.

The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility.

I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently;

that's another lame director who writes inept scripts.

Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway."

There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.

Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker.

However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious."

Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language.

After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.

I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...

Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/

This film is predictable;

it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets.

One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film.

The politics reminds me when I was back east.

Many people know when the fix is in.

I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.

This movie had the potential to be far more than it was.

But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.

John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil.

The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.

Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck.

He's good as usual but hardly standout.

Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story.

Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.

People don't act this way.

Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous.

The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound.

It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.

This is a bad, by the numbers movie.

It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour.

Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.

Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure.

He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably.

I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem.

An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller.

It's not.

City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind.

In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc.

And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen!

But again, it really doesn't.

Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society.

But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal.

I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.

Wow.

This is really not that good.

I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good...

it is, but it is nothing special.

The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.

*/****

I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers.

It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption.

It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense.

We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes.

The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way.

All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola.

"Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential."

Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC.

You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour.

The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable.

A horrible movie.

> What a dud.

It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered.

John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino.

His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films.

This was > one.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic.

However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.

BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more.

It was subtle.

It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death.

There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain.

It was balanced.

Disney's edit of Earth is none of this.

They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about.

They made it DRAMATIC.

They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us.

They made predators evil.

They made WALRUSES evil.

They showed every encounter as negative.

It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance.

The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.

I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.

That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality.

It looked better on my TV at home.

If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series.

It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.

I can't believe I am so angry after seeing this that I am about to write my first ever review on IMDb.

This Disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed Planet Earth lite.

Now I knew going into this that it was advertised as "from the people who brought you Planet Earth," but I had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini-series.

I just paid $8.75 to see something I already own on DVD.

Shame on Disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a James Earl Jones voice-over and 90 seconds of sailfish that I don't believe were in Planet Earth).

But the biggest crime of all, is that while Planet Earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change, Disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe.

After the male polar bear's demise, they show his cubs grown significantly a year later, and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory, and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all.

No mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured, no warning of trouble for future generations if we don't get our act together, nothing.

Just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more, if you are one of the billion people who have already seen Planet Earth).

I have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life.