MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film!
Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing.
Grady Harp, February 06
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government.
Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find.
Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey.
Grade: D+
I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized.
In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies.
This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco.
The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film.
A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.
While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss.
Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective.
She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.
Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.
The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment.
Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement.
Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen;
but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth.
Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent.
The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction;
except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.
The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life.
The plot is slow and lacking.
The acting is borderline comical.
While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice.
The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value.
The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment.
Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time.
Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.
The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary.
Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer.
It is not very interesting to me.
Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long.
I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act.
In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him.
Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds.
The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next.
Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.
A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China.
Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer).
American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology.
A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have.
They are seen as property and investment.
Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors.
Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie.
Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience.
O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with.
On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again.
Another problem with the movie is the ending.
It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture.
This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions.
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth.
Unfortunately, her role required no
She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film.
Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance).
Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles.
I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for.
She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act.
This seems like something that Hollywood does often.
Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban.
I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes.
She stayed the same throughout the film;
she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice.
If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.
Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time.
We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one.
The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine.
They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind.
Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended.
Yeah OK.
With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again.
Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it.
You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film.
However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour.
And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers.
Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah.
Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to.
Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together.
Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film.
Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense.
She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda.
Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery.
Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again.
There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to.
The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography.
The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive.
Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say.
One last thing.
I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything.
For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this).
Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly.
Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would.
The Good Earth is one epic waste of time.
If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets.
Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey.
The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China.
The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck.
The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles.

There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film!

Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing.

Grady Harp, February 06

Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government.

Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find.

Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey.

Grade: D+

I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized.

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies.

This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco.

The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film.

A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.

While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss.

Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective.

She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.

Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.

The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment.

Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement.

Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen;

but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth.

Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent.

The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction;

except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.

The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life.

The plot is slow and lacking.

The acting is borderline comical.

While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice.

The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value.

The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment.

Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time.

Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.

The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary.

Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer.

It is not very interesting to me.

Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long.

I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act.

In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him.

Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds.

The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next.

Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.

A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China.

Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer).

American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology.

A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have.

They are seen as property and investment.

Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors.

Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie.

Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience.

O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with.

On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again.

Another problem with the movie is the ending.

It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture.

This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions.

Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth.

Unfortunately, her role required no

She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film.

Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance).

Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles.

I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for.

She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act.

This seems like something that Hollywood does often.

Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban.

I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes.

She stayed the same throughout the film;

she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice.

If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.

Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time.

We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one.

The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine.

They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind.

Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended.

Yeah OK.

With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again.

Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it.

You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film.

However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour.

And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers.

Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah.

Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to.

Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together.

Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film.

Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense.

She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda.

Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery.

Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again.

There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to.

The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography.

The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive.

Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say.

One last thing.

I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything.

For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this).

Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly.

Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would.

The Good Earth is one epic waste of time.

If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets.

Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey.

The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China.

The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck.

The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles.