MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
I was so sick of this needy, whiny child that I didn't care if they made it home or not.
I'm sure there are parents who don't know how to discipline their kids so some will find this believable.
Those who feel parents should address rude and co-dependent behavior early, will lose patience with this mess of a movie driven by redundant bad behavior.
This movie will appeal to the six year olds...
and hopefully not to much older....
It was simply a terrible piece of work that went downhill from the opening.
If you liked Jimunji, then just watch it again rather than ruin your self with this dreadful film.
There is no decent exchange between characters...
the set is BORING!
Some of the writing for this was so trite and contrived that I thought I would gag!!
I was very glad to have it end and even happier to return it ...
the same day!
The two young actors were poorly directed as well.
Tim Robbins is in this for the first five minutes and about the last five minutes....
I'm sure he got a decent paycheck but his acting looked flat and as ridiculous as the rest of this thing.
If you enjoy watching two young brothers shouting at each other over and over and over again then this may be for you!!
....
would have made a better show.
Even in Black and White.
Scrpter David Koepp may well have been brought aboard to pad this piece, which i saw in a theater in Atlanta, GA last night - for free!
(An ARMED guy hired by Sony informed us that anyone caught copying the flick would be 'escorted from the premises.'...
but WHO would want to copy this?) .
the audience was really well mixed and received the movie warmly.
I thought the movie played too hard to the ten-year-old 'cussy-boy' crowd, who seemed after wards to be a bit embarrassed by it all, as were many of the parents whose eye I caught exiting the theater while the end credits rolled.
Not a soul screamed at the reptilian, rubber monster that terrorized the six-year old (precocious, as usual);
some of the sight gags were not fully developed (why was the bike falling out of the sky so pertinent?
We never found out whose it was!);
the teen girl feature was posed for the daddies in the theater.
The LANGUAGE was a problem for me and will be for Evangelical Christians on out to your huge crowd small-town moralists;
"Dick";
"Ass";
"God" and "O God....
Which begs the question: "Who is this movie for?"
Take another look at Joe Johnston's work to see how a director creates for a wider audience.
Hids "Jumanji" doesn't feel padded as "Zathura" does.
The filmmakers could have gone for the PG-13 while they were at it, for the Fox "Malcom in the Middle" crowd.
But I think that crowd is too small;
look at your TV viewing demographic....
yes, this movie just misses being family fare.
I hope I am right....
I'll give them point for good special effects and nice production values.
I'll even spot them a point because someone who had never seen Jumanji would find much of Zathura new and exciting.
OK, those are my 3 points in my rating.
The bickering interaction between the siblings was realistic enough I got to use it as an example to my kids, afterward.
I'm not giving it a point because it was irritating enough to get really old.
How in the *** *******!!!
can the makers have varied SO incomprehensibly little from Jumanji?
Even a sequel needs SOME variety!
The Robot (which, by the way, looked pretty cool - I want one) was a dead rip off of Van Pelt.
The meteor shower was a dead ripoff of the monsoon.
Etc.
I'm glad I found it on TV instead of renting it...
I certainly would have been finding a way to drop another point off my rating.
Never seen Jumanji?
Sure...
watch this.
Have?
I'm amazed anyone could have put this out on the market.
When i rented the DVD, the story and pictures on the cover seemed fun, but when i got to the middle of the movie i almost fell asleep.
The movie confuses it's watcher so much that it brings him to a point that he cannot understand who are the good guys and who are the bad.
The hero doesn't knows who to trust, too much talking and hardly no action..
The movie has a few humoristic moments, some action here and there but no more..
You can surely skip it...
Double Take is a film that makes you wonder how a pretty good premise like "Across the Bridge" (1957) can be turned into such a convoluted piece of...
(anyway a very bad movie).
There really is no way to descibe or spoil the movie because the plot is such a mess.
For example here is a plot summary--> there is a good guy (Orlando Jones) and a bad guy (Eddie Griffin) who has a dog that hates the good guy, but then the good guy is framed (by apparently the bad guys using what is called a "Double Take", but was he really framed by the good guys imitating the bad guys?
So, then the bad guy (Griffin) changes places with the good guy (Jones).
Only to have (Jones become a bad guy in another country where the now good-bad-guy (Griffin) killed a really bad guy and stole his dog for evidence (only no wait, he didn't really kill him either (probably another double take, i dont remember who really killed him, I think it was a bad guy).
So then wait, Jones apparently had a child with someone so that they could pull a " double take" on the real bad guys, only Griffin is still bad and the U.S. cops are bad, but the undercover cops are good, but the undercover mofia as undercover cops are bad, and eventually the head moffia boss guy is also good, but only until he is bad again.
And then.....
Well, if you made it this far and really want to know, watch the movie.
It has a few nice points (mainly around a beginning that references The Godfather (look for oranges, which signify death).
The bit about "Slitz malt liquor is good too).
But that is about it, a few good quotes does not a good movie make and Double Take gives you the fealing of, "Heah, maybe I can throw a good idea (or a zillion) at you."
One of them has got to stick.
The problem is that with so many ideas and concepts and bads and goods, and mechanical pen gismos used to call in the national guard, Double Take ain't kepn it Real.
It sure isn't representing the original 1957 movie idea.
Viewed in theatres (35mm) Rated:1
Frenetic, silly and a waste of time.
This movie has nothing to recommend it.
Clearly, someone had some extra money and time and decided that it would be charitable to give some B-movie actors some work.
The result is a perfectly forgettable effort.
The plot is most convoluted mix of relationships, back-stabbings and shootings imaginable.
It's like a RoadRunner cartoon.
Remember those?
The endings were always predictable.
The same is true of this movie.
There is absolutely nothing to make it interesting.
If you have any other way of spending 90 minutes then don't choose this movie.
I suggest either studying your navel or thumb twiddling.
Both are more exciting.
Hey, this film was awful.
I mean, there are bad films that are so terrible they are fun to watch.
But this one just goes waaay beyond imagination.
There was no way I could bear till the credits rolled and I had to give up around 55 mins into the story at the junkyard scene.
The plot is like it was written in a kindergarten for the mentally disadvantaged.
Plot holes of the size even an ocean liner would sink in them.
Mr Griffin is the unfunniest, most annoying wannabe ever giving a try on comedy.
Be warned and avoid at any cost.

I was so sick of this needy, whiny child that I didn't care if they made it home or not.

I'm sure there are parents who don't know how to discipline their kids so some will find this believable.

Those who feel parents should address rude and co-dependent behavior early, will lose patience with this mess of a movie driven by redundant bad behavior.

This movie will appeal to the six year olds...

and hopefully not to much older....

It was simply a terrible piece of work that went downhill from the opening.

If you liked Jimunji, then just watch it again rather than ruin your self with this dreadful film.

There is no decent exchange between characters...

the set is BORING!

Some of the writing for this was so trite and contrived that I thought I would gag!!

I was very glad to have it end and even happier to return it ...

the same day!

The two young actors were poorly directed as well.

Tim Robbins is in this for the first five minutes and about the last five minutes....

I'm sure he got a decent paycheck but his acting looked flat and as ridiculous as the rest of this thing.

If you enjoy watching two young brothers shouting at each other over and over and over again then this may be for you!!

....

would have made a better show.

Even in Black and White.

Scrpter David Koepp may well have been brought aboard to pad this piece, which i saw in a theater in Atlanta, GA last night - for free!

(An ARMED guy hired by Sony informed us that anyone caught copying the flick would be 'escorted from the premises.'...

but WHO would want to copy this?) .

the audience was really well mixed and received the movie warmly.

I thought the movie played too hard to the ten-year-old 'cussy-boy' crowd, who seemed after wards to be a bit embarrassed by it all, as were many of the parents whose eye I caught exiting the theater while the end credits rolled.

Not a soul screamed at the reptilian, rubber monster that terrorized the six-year old (precocious, as usual);

some of the sight gags were not fully developed (why was the bike falling out of the sky so pertinent?

We never found out whose it was!);

the teen girl feature was posed for the daddies in the theater.

The LANGUAGE was a problem for me and will be for Evangelical Christians on out to your huge crowd small-town moralists;

"Dick";

"Ass";

"God" and "O God....

Which begs the question: "Who is this movie for?"

Take another look at Joe Johnston's work to see how a director creates for a wider audience.

Hids "Jumanji" doesn't feel padded as "Zathura" does.

The filmmakers could have gone for the PG-13 while they were at it, for the Fox "Malcom in the Middle" crowd.

But I think that crowd is too small;

look at your TV viewing demographic....

yes, this movie just misses being family fare.

I hope I am right....

I'll give them point for good special effects and nice production values.

I'll even spot them a point because someone who had never seen Jumanji would find much of Zathura new and exciting.

OK, those are my 3 points in my rating.

The bickering interaction between the siblings was realistic enough I got to use it as an example to my kids, afterward.

I'm not giving it a point because it was irritating enough to get really old.

How in the ***** *********!!!

can the makers have varied SO incomprehensibly little from Jumanji?

Even a sequel needs SOME variety!

The Robot (which, by the way, looked pretty cool - I want one) was a dead rip off of Van Pelt.

The meteor shower was a dead ripoff of the monsoon.

Etc.

I'm glad I found it on TV instead of renting it...

I certainly would have been finding a way to drop another point off my rating.

Never seen Jumanji?

Sure...

watch this.

Have?

I'm amazed anyone could have put this out on the market.

When i rented the DVD, the story and pictures on the cover seemed fun, but when i got to the middle of the movie i almost fell asleep.

The movie confuses it's watcher so much that it brings him to a point that he cannot understand who are the good guys and who are the bad.

The hero doesn't knows who to trust, too much talking and hardly no action..

The movie has a few humoristic moments, some action here and there but no more..

You can surely skip it...

Double Take is a film that makes you wonder how a pretty good premise like "Across the Bridge" (1957) can be turned into such a convoluted piece of...

(anyway a very bad movie).

There really is no way to descibe or spoil the movie because the plot is such a mess.

For example here is a plot summary--> there is a good guy (Orlando Jones) and a bad guy (Eddie Griffin) who has a dog that hates the good guy, but then the good guy is framed (by apparently the bad guys using what is called a "Double Take", but was he really framed by the good guys imitating the bad guys?

So, then the bad guy (Griffin) changes places with the good guy (Jones).

Only to have (Jones become a bad guy in another country where the now good-bad-guy (Griffin) killed a really bad guy and stole his dog for evidence (only no wait, he didn't really kill him either (probably another double take, i dont remember who really killed him, I think it was a bad guy).

So then wait, Jones apparently had a child with someone so that they could pull a " double take" on the real bad guys, only Griffin is still bad and the U.S. cops are bad, but the undercover cops are good, but the undercover mofia as undercover cops are bad, and eventually the head moffia boss guy is also good, but only until he is bad again.

And then.....

Well, if you made it this far and really want to know, watch the movie.

It has a few nice points (mainly around a beginning that references The Godfather (look for oranges, which signify death).

The bit about "Slitz malt liquor is good too).

But that is about it, a few good quotes does not a good movie make and Double Take gives you the fealing of, "Heah, maybe I can throw a good idea (or a zillion) at you."

One of them has got to stick.

The problem is that with so many ideas and concepts and bads and goods, and mechanical pen gismos used to call in the national guard, Double Take ain't kepn it Real.

It sure isn't representing the original 1957 movie idea.

Viewed in theatres (35mm) Rated:1

Frenetic, silly and a waste of time.

This movie has nothing to recommend it.

Clearly, someone had some extra money and time and decided that it would be charitable to give some B-movie actors some work.

The result is a perfectly forgettable effort.

The plot is most convoluted mix of relationships, back-stabbings and shootings imaginable.

It's like a RoadRunner cartoon.

Remember those?

The endings were always predictable.

The same is true of this movie.

There is absolutely nothing to make it interesting.

If you have any other way of spending 90 minutes then don't choose this movie.

I suggest either studying your navel or thumb twiddling.

Both are more exciting.

Hey, this film was awful.

I mean, there are bad films that are so terrible they are fun to watch.

But this one just goes waaay beyond imagination.

There was no way I could bear till the credits rolled and I had to give up around 55 mins into the story at the junkyard scene.

The plot is like it was written in a kindergarten for the mentally disadvantaged.

Plot holes of the size even an ocean liner would sink in them.

Mr Griffin is the unfunniest, most annoying wannabe ever giving a try on comedy.

Be warned and avoid at any cost.