MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
Sorry.
This movie was awful.
The ending was absolutely horrible.
There was no plot to the movie whatsoever.
The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones.
Their performances were excellent!
The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice.
If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching.
Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...
or lack thereof.
Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....
well an actual movie...
not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason.
It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time.
There was nothing special about any of the characters.
The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man.
Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end.
When the movie ended, I sat amazed...
amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while.
It never happened!
The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning.
It wasn't even a story.
The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time.
That's it.
It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation.
How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)?
The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...
if you can even call it a movie.
Holy crap.
This was the worst film I have seen in a long time.
All the performances are fine, but there is no plot.
Really!
No plot!
A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film.
Ug...
Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over.
This earns him the same responses over and over.
I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it.
Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd.
Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS!
Sack
SWING!
is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s.
Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape.
It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.
Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess.
The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day.
However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning.
This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown!
And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed!
Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him!
It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.
Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture.
Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!
There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment.
Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior.
Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway"?).
Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back.
The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is.
Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays;
here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial).
At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering.
It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf.
The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace;
one loses hope for it early on.
1/2 from ***
I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it.
Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride.
Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.
Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think this scene added to the movie at all.
I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!
In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors.
The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary.
The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie.
Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.
When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis.
Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State.
Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.
A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter.
In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler.
It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department;
they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem.
Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.
A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down.
Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy;
this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters.
(If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).
The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm.
Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright.
There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde.
(Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one).
Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds.
Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed.
On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon.
On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume.
The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.
The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny.
Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed.

Sorry.

This movie was awful.

The ending was absolutely horrible.

There was no plot to the movie whatsoever.

The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones.

Their performances were excellent!

The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice.

If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching.

Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...

or lack thereof.

Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....

well an actual movie...

not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason.

It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time.

There was nothing special about any of the characters.

The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man.

Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end.

When the movie ended, I sat amazed...

amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while.

It never happened!

The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning.

It wasn't even a story.

The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time.

That's it.

It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation.

How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)?

The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...

if you can even call it a movie.

Holy crap.

This was the worst film I have seen in a long time.

All the performances are fine, but there is no plot.

Really!

No plot!

A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film.

Ug...

Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over.

This earns him the same responses over and over.

I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it.

Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd.

Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS!

Sack

SWING!

is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s.

Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape.

It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.

Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess.

The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day.

However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning.

This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown!

And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed!

Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him!

It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.

Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture.

Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!

There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment.

Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior.

Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway"?).

Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back.

The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is.

Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays;

here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial).

At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering.

It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf.

The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace;

one loses hope for it early on.

*1/2 from ****

I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it.

Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride.

Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.

Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think this scene added to the movie at all.

I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!

In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!

Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors.

The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary.

The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie.

Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.

When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis.

Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State.

Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.

A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter.

In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler.

It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department;

they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem.

Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.

A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down.

Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy;

this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters.

(If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).

The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm.

Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright.

There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde.

(Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one).

Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds.

Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed.

On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon.

On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume.

The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.

The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny.

Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed.