MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again.
If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity
My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video.
Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest.
Plus it just wasn't that interesting.
Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable.
I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies.
I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick.
He was just too pathetic here.
I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it.
It is so bad I am in disbelief.
Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.'
This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film.
It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.
There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies.
Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.
Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier?
The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.
'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess.
In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star.
Here she has even lost her talent as a star.
If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.
Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors.
After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.'
In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's.
Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn.
Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad.
Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it;
even her hair and clothes look tacky.
Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.
And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening.
John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty.
Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.
Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less?
Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this.
At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice;
by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly;
she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!
' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.
To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.'
And then this!
And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.
I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.'
The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.
A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common.
And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance.
Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.'
But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway.
Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part.
After that, all of her acting went downhill.
I think I will make a movie next weekend.
Oh wait, I'm working..
oh I'm sure I can fit it in.
It looks like whoever made this film fit it in.
I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!!
It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!!
Total crap!!!
Who let's this stuff be released?
Pros: Nothing Cons: Everything Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.
Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles.
Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening.
How does a movie like this even get made?
Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.
My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films.
They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.
My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)
If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys: 1.
In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits.
That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...
I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act.
Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time.
Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...
If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.
Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise.
Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character?
That's not a great idea.
Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...
Only for zombie completists.
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle.
And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!!
Wow, not!!
That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating.
That's what made the original zombie classics good.
The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra.
We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's.
The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well.
Well, I think I've said enough.
Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
There's tons of good-looking women in this flick.
But alas, this movie is nudity-free.
Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.
Ahem.
One story in this film takes place in 1971.
Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage?
Hello?
Continuity, anyone?
As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D.
And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen.
I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs.
I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD.

I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again.

If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity

My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video.

Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest.

Plus it just wasn't that interesting.

Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable.

I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies.

I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick.

He was just too pathetic here.

I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it.

It is so bad I am in disbelief.

Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.'

This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film.

It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.

There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies.

Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.

Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier?

The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.

'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess.

In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star.

Here she has even lost her talent as a star.

If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.

Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors.

After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.'

In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's.

Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn.

Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad.

Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it;

even her hair and clothes look tacky.

Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.

And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening.

John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty.

Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.

Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less?

Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this.

At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice;

by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly;

she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!

' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.

To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.'

And then this!

And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.

I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.'

The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.

A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common.

And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance.

Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.'

But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway.

Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part.

After that, all of her acting went downhill.

I think I will make a movie next weekend.

Oh wait, I'm working..

oh I'm sure I can fit it in.

It looks like whoever made this film fit it in.

I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!!

It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!!

Total crap!!!

Who let's this stuff be released?

Pros: Nothing Cons: Everything Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.

Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles.

Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening.

How does a movie like this even get made?

Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.

My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films.

They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.

My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)

If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys: 1.

In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits.

That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...

I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act.

Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time.

Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...

If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.

Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise.

Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character?

That's not a great idea.

Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...

Only for zombie completists.

1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle.

And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!!

Wow, not!!

That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating.

That's what made the original zombie classics good.

The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra.

We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's.

The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well.

Well, I think I've said enough.

Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.

There's tons of good-looking women in this flick.

But alas, this movie is nudity-free.

Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem.

One story in this film takes place in 1971.

Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage?

Hello?

Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D.

And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen.

I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs.

I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD.