MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.
Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD!
I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.
This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.
Heath Ledger is a heartthrob?
He looked deformed.
I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him.
Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob?
With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.
Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers?
This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film.
This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring.
We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better.
It didn't.
The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious.
Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence.
That's not funny.
But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!"
We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience.
When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.
I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free.
It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.
If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western."
For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison.
To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.
Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown.
Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret.
He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it.
What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that?
It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo.
Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment.
There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle.
And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.
Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging.
It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.
"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.
This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it.
The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies.
There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense.
Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film.
The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them.
The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances.
The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell.
I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter.
That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD.
No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself.
Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad.
A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.
This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it.
For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.
Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing.
I can see now why it went straight to video.
I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value.
All have done wonderful work in the past.
The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in.
I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end.
I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes.
It won't satisfy even that.
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story.
Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality;
but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.
The beginning could have been a lot more involving;
perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing.
And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.
I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better.
The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.
Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful.
It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America.
Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...
it is the worst film I have seen in a long time
From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable.
Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure.
In this film you will find none of that.
The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards.
It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.
The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain.
The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence.
We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.
This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression.
I found the film a real chore to watch.
It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.
I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers).
Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names.
That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest.
Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott.
Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all.
Okay!
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10.
What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes.
There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake.
There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts.
It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good.
Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland.
But..
maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation?
Who knows.
Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way!

But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.

Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD!

I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.

This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.

Heath Ledger is a heartthrob?

He looked deformed.

I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him.

Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob?

With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.

Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers?

This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film.

This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring.

We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better.

It didn't.

The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious.

Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence.

That's not funny.

But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!"

We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience.

When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.

I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free.

It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.

If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western."

For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison.

To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.

Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown.

Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret.

He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it.

What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that?

It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo.

Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment.

There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle.

And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.

Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging.

It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.

"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.

This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it.

The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies.

There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense.

Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film.

The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them.

The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances.

The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell.

I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter.

That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD.

No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself.

Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad.

A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.

This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it.

For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.

Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing.

I can see now why it went straight to video.

I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value.

All have done wonderful work in the past.

The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in.

I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end.

I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes.

It won't satisfy even that.

I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story.

Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality;

but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.

The beginning could have been a lot more involving;

perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing.

And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.

I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better.

The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.

Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful.

It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America.

Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...

it is the worst film I have seen in a long time

From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable.

Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure.

In this film you will find none of that.

The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards.

It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.

The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain.

The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence.

We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.

This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression.

I found the film a real chore to watch.

It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.

I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers).

Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names.

That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest.

Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott.

Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all.

Okay!

I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10.

What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes.

There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake.

There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts.

It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good.

Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland.

But..

maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation?

Who knows.

Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way!