empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.
Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.
Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.
All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This early film from director Bob Clark ("Porky's", "Black Christmas", "A Christmas Story") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some "comedic" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.
1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.
2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.
3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.
4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.
5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.
Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.)
Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.
Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.
Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.
Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.
Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.
The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.
I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The main problems of 'Saw' are related to the tremendous script mistakes that only a uncritical spectator will just obviate. The main question is what's is the purpose of the killer in his lying in the middle of the floor? The film tries to show that the killer's aim is to cause evil and destruction in his victims, he loves to play with the lives of other people and to feel control over their the fears and debilities. So why does he just pretend to be dead between the two main characters? A tremendous unlikelihood: can a man pretend to be dead for more than one or two hours without moving a single muscle or even without breathing in order not to be discovered by two men who are in the same room? It has not sense at all except to be the final (d)effect of the movie. The killer seems to have always the control along the plot and if it's lying like a dead body this can't be possible. Finally, it doesn't work. The right place for the killer should have been a darker and untouchable shadow behind the false shadow (the male nurse) but not the floor of the white room. The director shouldn't have showed the killer's face and maybe the site where he is hidden. Then, the film would be a quite good thriller. However, 'Saw' is just a fiasco. Hitchcock, please, come back.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This was the most unrealistic movie I ever seen.
I can't believe that the writer and director didn't see that almost all the movie looks like a SF one.
For example:
1. It is impossible for the killer to stay on cold glaze and after 10 hours to get up so quickly.
2. You can't get electrocuted trough a water pipe like in the movie.(believe me, it's my domain)
3. With a saw you can cut 10 pipes in 10 hour very easy. Let's say that the chain was made from steel but the water pipe was rusty and it was made from iron.
4. If you try to cut your foot with a saw you faint (in the best case, it's more likely to die because your hart fails) before to get to the bone(shin).
And there are more other examples.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed "genius" by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says "Wow, that is so cool" everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that "needs" two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.
Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the "big" twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.
After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and "shock" factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: "Oh yes, there will be blood." Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said "forget everything you know about acting" because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.
It left me yearning for a real film. :)
The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.
And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.
(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)
Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There are bad movies and then there are movies which are even worst. Saw is just that.
The movie is simply bad on all points. The plot, the acting, the camera work, the music and everything else is absolutely terrible and I cannot begin to comprehend how such trash made it to the big screen.
The simple fact is that Saw is riddled with plot holes. The beginning is enticing and leaves much to be expected but it does not hold up and the plot becomes absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The film is not creative and will not leave you with a single bit of credibility. People that claim that this movie is gory, violent, sadistic and scary are sissy girls who have nightmares after watching CSI because it is far from that.
So I am warning you know, do not attempt to watch this if you have any form of intellect, because you will be disappointed. A true bore and a mediocre film as can be.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
"Hood Rat" is absolutely terrible. This is a urban version of "Willard". I just can't believe this movie got made, let alone distributed. Someone in Universal Studios thought that people would watch and like this "movie". The only good thing in this is Ice-T as the landlord. He was funny.
The one thing I hate in movies is sped up action. Once or twice is bad enough, but the WHOLE movie is like that. Every scene transition is some fast motion special effect. The director should be banned from making movies forever.
Trust Me, Never see this movie!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I can't believe that Isaiah Washington and Ice-T were in this mess! The plot (and I use that term very loosely) centers around an army of rats that terrorize an urban apartment complex--at least I think that's what it was about. The script made no sense at all, I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the camera-work consisted of repeatedly showing shadow images of rats standing on their hind legs or running. Running is what I should have done. As an African American male, I often read pleas from my brothers and sisters to "support African American films." I try to help out, but enough is enough. No one should watch garbage like this for any reason whatsoever. Please, brothers and sisters, don't produce any more direct to video rat turds like this. Please!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I normally am a glutton for poor movies, but this thing stunk.
Do not watch this movie.
Terrible effects and very little humour, what the hell was the point of making this movie? No gore to speak of and no acting to speak of.
I could only manage 45 minutes of this rat dropping of a movie, and that is rare for me.
Something positive to say about this drivel? cover art was OK, I am pretty sure the movie has a ending too, even tho I did not make it to it.
The rats were unorganized and blew their lines constantly,they lacked intensity and seemed just to be going through the paces for their paycheque. The actors were worse.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
(spoiler) it could be the one the worst movie you see, you might like it like I did I really like it. Its one of those odds movie.
There is man who seen to have a had day in life. Blacks rats some how feel sorry him (which I think was a good Idea).
The killer rats become friends with man two big man come making feel unwanted so the man set the killer rat on them and floor to floor both bodies covered in big black rats not that much blood.
but think about big black rats all over body) but start to little killing people but rats are going over-bored until the rats kills his friends and girlfriends,
Ther one scene in were seating on the toilet while rats are going into the pipes leading to toilet and rat goes up his you know and come out of his mouth, (which mean the rats must off eaten everything inside in body's) I had me laughing for weeks
why did i like this movie, yes it's different of the rest, I for ONE like it when little creature takes on mankind.
if you have seen any of these movie slugs, slither, Them, spiders, snakes, tremors ,Cujo, crocodile, shark, octopus.
If you liked them and check out Hood rats,
it better then Terror toons that all I Can say! 4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie wasn't the best... but it did have some good actors in it. Isiaiah Washington was pretty good as a homeless guy, Guy Torrey was good as his handicapped brother, Ice-T was humorous as the landlord and surprisingly...the actress Tami Roman was good as the Judge in the movie. I didn't even know it was her and I am a die hard Real World fan. She was totally believable. Hopefully this movie won't hinder these actors development. I know that Isiaiah has left this movie far behind with the success of Grey's Anatomy, Ice-T with his regular role on NYPD Special Unit and Tami Roman has landed a recurring role on Sex Love and Secrets (UPN's new soap opera). I wish the same for the other actors because one bad movie DOESN'T a bad actor make.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie is bad, so bad that my mother who can barely stand the "suspense" of Disney's Snow White, was chuckling through out the entire movie. My first warning should've been that it was in the $5.50 bin at Wal-mart. But I have actually found some good movies in that bin, so i can't fault if for this debacle. The second warning should have been that when the cashier rang up the DVD, it was actually $3.88. Again I have never been one to ignore the cheapies. THis movie is definitely not for people looking for something good to watch, and it most certainly isn't for everyone that enjoys the occasional bad movie. If you need background noise while you are doing something like playing cards with some friends, then get this but if you are looking for something to actually watch don't even bother. It was really disappointing because there were a lot of good actors. I felt like i was watching a chocolate version of Willard.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't understand how some people can stand playing "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" when there are so many better first-person shooting games available.
"Counter-Strike" is a game that doesn't use any imaginative ideas in its weaponry. All the weapons in the game are real-life weapons, but there could have been at least a cheat that allowed players to have access to a "supernatural" weapon, like the all-powerful BFG in the Quake & Doom games.
Another problem is that the player actually has to reload the weapon manually. This can become extremely annoying, especially while in the middle of a firefight when you are so close to killing the enemy. The reloading delay also gives the feeling that the gun is slow at performing its task.
There are not many choices of characters to choose from. If I remember correctly, there are 4 types of characters each for the Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist forces. This means that many of the characters look the same as each other, which really brings down the game's realism.
The game is pretty sexist when it comes to character selections. In the early version of Counter-Strike, there was a woman available to choose (in the Terrorist force selection) which was good for the female gamers. In the latest versions, however, the female character was deleted and replaced with another male character. I wonder if the women who played the game were disappointed at the newer versions.
Finally, the maps in the game are very small. The biggest map seems to be the desert map, but it has standard detail. In fact, all the maps in the game have standard graphics. In other words, nothing new.
To sum up, I think "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" is the most un-imaginative first-person shooting game of all time. There are plenty of better & more imaginative shooting games to play, so why waste your time on this boring game? You're better off playing the Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom games. Avoid this over-rated & over-hyped game.
I give the game a 1/10.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
"The Man From Utah" opens with a singing cowboy strumming a guitar on horseback. This is how we're introduced to John Weston (John Wayne), heading into town and looking for work. When he helps Marshal Higgins (George pre-Gabby Hayes) foil a bank robbery with his fancy shooting, the marshal offers him an undercover job as a deputy to investigate the Dalton Valley Rodeo. Apparently, the annual winners of the big prize money in the rodeo are a tight knit band of bad boys in the employ of Spike Barton (Ed Peil), who also happens to head up the rodeo committee. Serious challengers to the supremacy of Barton's top henchman Cheyenne Kent (Yakima Canutt) wind up severely ill or dead.
Even back in these 1930's Lone Star Westerns John Wayne had a charismatic presence that hinted at future star quality. If for nothing else, seeing Wayne so young in these films is a real treat. The movie itself clips along at a quick fifty three minute pace, much of it taken up by stock rodeo footage of roping, bulldogging and Indian parade and dance. In the deciding rodeo event, Weston avoids disaster by discovering a poisoned needle inserted into the saddle of "Dynamite", a formerly unridden bronco on which he must outlast Cheyenne.
The ending is no surprise, as Barton's bad boys forsake winning the rodeo events and go for the whole thirty thousand dollar pot of prize money deposited in the local bank. But the marshal and Weston are there to foil their plans and save the day for the Dalton Valley Rodeo. And as we've seen before in films like "Neath the Arizona Skies" and "Randy Rides Alone", Wayne's character closes out the film in a clinch with a pretty young lady, this time the judge's daughter Marjorie Carter (Polly Ann Young), who pined for him throughout the film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say "Ro-DAY-oh"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great "Duck Soup" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.
The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.
My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion.
Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
to make this short and sweet: i hope this movie will not be considered the seminal work for the "gener-asian" of american film making. the acting was sub-par, relying on stereotypes, raised voices, and exaggerated eye-buggery to convey its message. chris chan park does not delve very deep into the any of his characters, allowing them to remain caricatures of angry/frustrated/distant/uncommunicative asians. these depictions do not make characters mysteriously appealing; it makes them confusing and unsympathetic. i like to think that us asians are more complex than that.
i came out of the movie unconvinced. unconvinced that these characters had a life long, blood-brother like connection with each other to go to the lengths they did to help their buddy out. unconvinced that the main character had anything beyond a superficial attraction to his girlfriend. unconvinced that hard working immigrant parents wouldn't pay for their son's college education. unconvinced that all of the characters were even necessary, i.e.: janet, who is put to bed in the back of the car and quickly forgotten.
the story line, which i actually think had potential, was not allowed to come into its own for two reasons: 1) flat characters for whom i had no sympathy/affinity, 2) the plot is overshadowed by meaningless non-sequitur scenes, such as the seance/donut shop sequence with amy hill which was simply ridiculous and unnecessary.
i commend park for his efforts, as i'm sure it took a lot of hard work to even produce the film, and i'll even give him the benefit of the doubt this time around as a rookie director/screenwriter, but i sincerely hope that next time around he'll go a little deeper. just because the film is one of the first of its kind about the korean american experience, doesn't mean it's automatically good.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine.
This movie's theme is "modern prostitution", but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's "Hero", but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.
The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.
I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Ridiculous film where two swinging college graduates move out to California and one becomes a movie star and the other his manager.
As 10 years pass, the star's popularity is decreasing so it is determined that there will be a television show where women will compete for his affection.
The film is obnoxious and ridiculous. The girls who vie for lover boy are made to look foolish. Only one girl seems to be the choice of the producer of the show. She is really an amateur up against some of the other women, but she is wholesome and brings good ratings to the show as well.
By the third scene you realize that the manager is falling for her.
We know that Ryan really was meant to be a bachelor. While the ending is somewhat cute, you really know where this was going.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was obscenely obvious and predictable. The scenes were poorly written and acted even worse. Following the horrible scenes was the terrible script filled with pointless and poorly thought out lines. I would never suggest this movie to anyone who would have any sense in watching decent movies. This movie was not only with the same ideas as the show the Bachelor and Bachelorette but also contained many parts in which you would know what the next move and line was going to be without ever having to watched the movie before. The casting was fine but the actors played there characters horribly with more drama then should have been used and said lines in was that wanted you to change the channel quickly. As a note please don't watch this movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.
His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.
And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.
Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).
The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.
Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...
Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.
I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.
The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.
Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.
The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.
In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
i rented this when it came out on video cassette in 1995. After rewatching it again,my idea about it hasn't changed much.
i was an adult then and i'm still an adult now!lol
The illogical elements mentioned by other reviewers didn't bother me. This isn't a documentary,it's a fantasy story where animals can talk!
While i didn't care for much of the songs,i liked the one at the end of the picture where it's sang by barry manilow and another person.
Some people seem to make an excuse for it's primitive animation by saying that CGI wasn't used often in animated features but let's not forget that THE LION KING was released about a year earlier and that packed possibly more excellence than any animated feature that came before it!!
But i think it's pretty fair to say that THE PEBBLE AND THE PINGOIN was made on the cheap while THE LION KING wasn't....
The high points for me in 1995 as well as today is the suspense generated by the few dangerous(mostly) underwater chase scenes.
i also liked the opening scene which takes place on a music notes page and a little bit of the love story. But most of the time,the story dragged on and was boring.
Worth a look if you like animation but if you're an adult and not a risk taker,go get another Walt Disney production instead of this!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.
I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.
Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.
The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.
I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.
4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the "dreams can come true" schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.
Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.
There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie contains the worst acting performance of all time. Spilsbury lacks energy to say the least. Energy is what Clayton Moore gave us in spades. I never felt once in this movie that Spilsbury was anxious for anything. Revenge, love, justice? Not in this guy's portrayal.
There is also no chemistry between Tonto and LR. If the plot did not force them to be friends, you don't get the impression they want to hang out with each other. Plus, the sidekick has the more interesting personality. Ewww.
The dialogue is predictable and boring.
The narration is stunningly bad and if you are familiar with the Dukes of Hazzard you can picture what this is like. I cannot believe the director would agree to this. It insulted me as a viewer by explaining every plot line I just witnessed.
Hey, at least the horses and locations looked good, maybe that is what happens when you hire a cinematographer to be your director.
RATING-2 You may be able to watch this one for laughs or to demonstrate to an alien what a bad movie is.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name "Lone Ranger" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.
In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.


assistant
0