MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
Yesterday was Earth Day (April 22, 2009) in the US and other countries, and I went to see the full-feature movie-version of "Earth" by DisneyNature.
I guess, like the auto manufacturers, Disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet.
Maybe they really do care about the planet, I don't know, but I don't think it warrants a special unit with the word "nature" in it.
I do know that my youngest daughter loves Mickey Mouse, and who am I to tell a one-year old my personal feelings about Disney?
Aside from incredible cinematography, it was a typical Disney disappointment for me.
Preceded by a half-dozen Disney movie trailers, rife with Disney cliché ("circle of life", "falling with style"), over-dramatic music, recycled footage (Disney claims "40% new footage").
I was even starting to think that James Earl Jones narration is getting a bit boring.
I like James Earl Jones, but his work for Disney and Morgan Freeman doing every Warner Brothers narrative starts to wear thin.
I really think that Disney bought some BBC nature photography that was so spectacularly done, they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound-bites on it.
And what is Disney's obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals?
There were a half-dozen such scenes, complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out.
I think Disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action-movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents.
I was also cognizant of how Disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change.
Are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it's still a controversial subject?
I recommend skipping this one and renting the Blue Planet DVDs on Netflix.
Nature films seem to be best done by the British at the moment.
i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....
all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...
it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......
oops,...........
James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......
it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....
i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it
A lot of death happens in the wild.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out!
But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary?
What is with this fascination with gruesome death?
Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions?
Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less!
I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film!
And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers?
Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?
Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible.
It was surreal!
It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip!
Wow!
From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!
If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating;
giving birth;
laying eggs;
bathing;
sleeping;
cleaning each other;
socializing;
playing;
emotional displays other than fear and anger;
unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding;
migration;
problem solving skills;
culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture);
communication skills;
parenting, healing abilities, etc.
In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?
My title above says it all.
Let me make it clearer.
If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much.
And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it.
I was excited to check it out.
Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery.
And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth."
The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth."
We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" .
I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize.
I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.
So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids.
Yes, the narration is quite kiddish.
Let me give you an example.
When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids.
They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell.
This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !
For those who'd like to see this movie?
I'd say: go!
Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary.
But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me.
Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching.
But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene.
I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains?
I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible.
Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie.
Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right.
The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall.
Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding.
So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process.
The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy.
Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding.
Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die."
Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out.
The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not.
There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored.
For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man.
Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.
One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case.
The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's.
There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets.
But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.
There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms.
But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one.
It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.
However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing.

Yesterday was Earth Day (April 22, 2009) in the US and other countries, and I went to see the full-feature movie-version of "Earth" by DisneyNature.

I guess, like the auto manufacturers, Disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet.

Maybe they really do care about the planet, I don't know, but I don't think it warrants a special unit with the word "nature" in it.

I do know that my youngest daughter loves Mickey Mouse, and who am I to tell a one-year old my personal feelings about Disney?

Aside from incredible cinematography, it was a typical Disney disappointment for me.

Preceded by a half-dozen Disney movie trailers, rife with Disney cliché ("circle of life", "falling with style"), over-dramatic music, recycled footage (Disney claims "40% new footage").

I was even starting to think that James Earl Jones narration is getting a bit boring.

I like James Earl Jones, but his work for Disney and Morgan Freeman doing every Warner Brothers narrative starts to wear thin.

I really think that Disney bought some BBC nature photography that was so spectacularly done, they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound-bites on it.

And what is Disney's obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals?

There were a half-dozen such scenes, complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out.

I think Disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action-movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents.

I was also cognizant of how Disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change.

Are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it's still a controversial subject?

I recommend skipping this one and renting the Blue Planet DVDs on Netflix.

Nature films seem to be best done by the British at the moment.

i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....

all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...

it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......

oops,...........

James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......

it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....

i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it

A lot of death happens in the wild.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out!

But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary?

What is with this fascination with gruesome death?

Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions?

Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less!

I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film!

And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers?

Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?

Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible.

It was surreal!

It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip!

Wow!

From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!

If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating;

giving birth;

laying eggs;

bathing;

sleeping;

cleaning each other;

socializing;

playing;

emotional displays other than fear and anger;

unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding;

migration;

problem solving skills;

culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture);

communication skills;

parenting, healing abilities, etc.

In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?

My title above says it all.

Let me make it clearer.

If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much.

And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it.

I was excited to check it out.

Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery.

And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth."

The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth."

We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" .

I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize.

I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.

So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids.

Yes, the narration is quite kiddish.

Let me give you an example.

When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids.

They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell.

This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !

For those who'd like to see this movie?

I'd say: go!

Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary.

But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me.

Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching.

But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene.

I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains?

I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.

The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible.

Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie.

Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right.

The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall.

Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding.

So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process.

The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy.

Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding.

Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die."

Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out.

The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not.

There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored.

For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man.

Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.

One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case.

The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's.

There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets.

But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.

There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms.

But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one.

It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.

However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing.