Worst Lesbian Film of the Decade
	Not only was the dialogue of the film trite and the plot much like a pornographic after school special, but the movie unfortunately reinforces a worldview which anti-homosexual groups been touting for years--If you're thinking turning your female frienship into a relationship, don't.  The lesbian always goes crazy and dies in the end.
  If you're interested in finding out what I'm talking about, Lisa Duggan explains how this ideology gets transimitted and reinforced in her book Sapphic Slashers. Also, If you're interested in watching a film about first-time lesbian love, please do yourself a favor and check out The Incredible True Story of Two Girls in Love or But, I'm a Cheerleader.  Support movies that actually advance queer causes instead of making all of us look like freaks


Shamefully Dissappointing DVD.
	The shows themselves are wonderful, but the people who put together this DVD set should be ashamed of this paltry effort! There are NO cast or staff interviews about the ending of such a wonderful series. NO commentaries. No English sub-titles.  NO John Spencer honorarium of any kind. They didn't even take the time to include the 1 hour re-showing of the original pilot they aired before the finale!  The only "extras" are two not-special-at-all special features dealing with the debate. This DVD set is definately NOT worth the money to buy it brand new.


Unsuitable for European DVD players
	Unfortunately this MS collection is not compatible with European DVD players.  The cover of the DVD actually tells you this as well as that it is 'not for sale or rent outside the US and Canada'.  Save yourself a lot of trouble and don't buy this if you are from the EU!


Total disappointment..!!!
	Cheesy instructor
the instructor's voice covers the music in the background which turns you off going on with the exercize, the music itself is monotonous and the beat is not inline with the moves. the instructor is too fast to follow..to cut it short i do not recommend this for anyone ..totally not professional


Too fast
	I have always like Denise Austin, however; this was tape was way too fast for a beginner.  I thought it was for beginner and on up.  Denise went way to fast and she did not explain the poses at all.  I will not be using this tape.  I was disappointed because normally I love her videotapes and her.


Yuck, Yuck, Yuck
	I hated this movie. SO unrealistic. Sure, maybe there are some little freaks running around raping and drinking and beating. But I AM a teenager in a city. NOBODY acts like this!
What the hell is the point of this movie? To scare the crap out of parents?
Also, the rape scene was vile. At first I respected the director for showing it and not shying away. A FULL MINUTE LATER, I started feeling awkward and uncomfortable. It wasn't even artistic, it was just disgusting and truly disturbing


Scarlett
	Margarett Mitchell must be rolling in her grave. She wrote a masterpiece in the 1930's, then Alexandra Ripley bought the rights to her book by conning Margaret Mitchell's heirs to sell out the legacy of their relative.  Alexandra Ripley's novel was an embarrasing pile of mush, even worse than a Barbara Courtland romance novel.

Beautiful costumes and a good cast - but the script is a soap opera and very poorly written with too many cliche's.  The TV movie version is even worse than Alexandra Ripley's book. I would have given this movie zero stars - but gave it 2 stars solely for the world class acting of Sean Bean as the deliciously evil Lord Fenton.

Sean Bean heats up the screen as a sexy, feral villian along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" as an unsafe sex symbol.  Unless you are a Sean Bean fan, there is nothing worthwhile about this film.  The script is trite, cliche'd and very slow moving.  Sean Bean is only in Disc 1 and his character is eliminated and the movie slides downhill from there.

Disc 2 is overwrought with very boring, drawn out courtroom scenes...I was almost rooting that Scarlett would be hanged for the murder just to see an end to this movie!

I've always liked Joanna Whaley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton. They are excellent actors wasted in this pile of mush movie. Ann-Margaret's performance as Belle Watling is so bad I wanted to slap her.

Do yourself a favor and watch the original Gone With the Wind starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh if you want to see a wonderful film


technical problems
	I've loved this movie ever since I saw it on CBS years ago so I was really excited to own it on DVD. Unfortunately the experience was ruined when I discovered that there are big sound problems on the second disc. Loud popping sounds completely cover up the dialogue in an entire scene. I was very dissapointed.

The movie is great but the sound problems aren't worth the purchase. Stay away


Very boring
	The plot to this movie or so called sequal is horrible.  I rented this movie expecting something good and I end up falling asleep.  I actually had to watch it several times just to find out what really happened.  Don't even buy it, it is a waist of your money


The Most Biased Movie I've Watched in  Long Long Time
	Whatever ills are in the world, it's all the fault of the corporations. That's the basic premise of this terribly misguided one-sided and totally non-objective movie. For example, instead of saying how terrible it is for companies paying people in the developing world peanuts for their work, they forget that these people's alternatives ARE EVEN WORSE and that's why they took that job in the first place!  These jobs provide them with one of the few options they have and, if they chose that job freely, it must be their BEST option, no matter how crazy it seems to us. As people's skills rise, as opportunities increase over time (by having MORE corporations and not less, to create more competition for these people's labor), and as the country becomes wealthier, these people's wages will rise automaticaly and in fact, the wages of the whole country on the average.  There are no shortcuts to his.  A famous story comes from Nepal where anti-child labor laws, at the urging of the UN, turned thousands of kids overnight into prostitutes as those jobs, as sad as it may be, were their best options to avoid starvation and feed their families.  It's a slow process, but all the industrialized nations went through that process.  Government-mandated "shortcuts" usually produce results which are even worse.  However, the results speak for themselves: in VERY short period of time, for example, HUNDRDS OF MILLIONS of people were lifted out of poverty in China, India and around the world thanks for the "evil" capalism   its corporations.  No other system has ever done it so quickly as in the past 15 years in China and India alone.  Also, cost of living is very low there, so these pennies really can go a long way, don't measure it to the cost of living in the West.  What is the filmmakers alternative they offer for these people? I guess to let people starve to death, then the makers of this movie don't have have anyting to complain about!?  Other examples of stupidity include showing that a company is like a person who's a psychopath.  A corpoartion is a legal entity yes, and may act like a separate "being" as far the law in concerned, but does a corporation have a nose, feet, stomach? Can it eat apples or sneeze or have arthritis? Of course, not, than how can you attach a human idea like a psychopath to it??  Several of the main "spokepersons" in the movie, Chomsky, Michael Moore, Rifkin and others are renowned for their off-the-wall comments which frequently have NO basis in any kind of economics or reality.  To correct the inaccuracies in the statements made by these and other people in the movie, you'd have to stop it every 5 minutes and explain to the audience how profoundly wrong the statements are.  Throughout the whole movie, you're basically bombarded by one-sided arguments with VERY little of the other side presented, despite the director's claim of the opposite 9they claim 1/2   1/2, it's more like 80%-20%).  Just look at Chomsky's comments about how the consumers are so stupid, they don't realize that all the things they buy they don't really need. I mean we don't need fashionable clothes (hey, let's all dress as boring as Chomsky!), DVD players, or any new gadgets that make life easier or more fun.  Who is the judge of what you REALLY need?  Chomsky, of course. He is the final arbiter of what you really need or what you don't. You're too stupid to know what you want, according to him. He says that you should do "more important things", like...perhaps studying lingistics (which he teaches but which very few care about).  The movie DOES make some correct and good observations, especially regarding polution, however, I'd say that 80% of the movie is factually and logically flawed. It's also FULL of economic fallacies. It's worth watching I guess, just to see how many errors one can make in just 1 movie.  Despite all the ranting in the movie, it fails to mention THE biggest reason of most of the problems it brings up - too much governement interference is every facet of life.  For examples, how could a Government of Brazil forbit the people of collecting rain water! How could the U.S. government do so many things for private companies with public funds?  Just forbid the governments from playing favorites with companies, forbid government corporate welfare of ANY kind, forbid subsidies to companies, cut the suffocating red tape and regulation (esp. in developing countries but in the West too), cut corporate taxes to 5 or 10% (and see unemployment rate go to almost nothing, give people all around the world a better life, increase competition, etc.)  If these and other governments (and not corporations') problems were eliminated, the vast majority of ALL the problems which the movie brings up will simply go away.  An interesing film for anyone to see how the truth can be twisted by mindless people with an agenda to go back to 15th century rural lifestile (spoken about with much admiration), people with NO understanding about economics, how the world really works and how to REALLY raise the billions out of poverty who this movie does the biggest disservice for.


The Chopped it up
	We saw the movie in the theatre and loved it. The DVD we just purchased was horrible. They chopped out so much of the movie it made it un-watchable. It is only good for a coaster under my drink now


TERI HATCHER NAKED? BIG DEAL - WHERE'S THE CURVES?
	She's built like a 12-year-old boy... give me Vida Guerra anyday


Logo Imprint Compromises Presentation
	I was thrilled when I first read that MLB Productions was finally issuing a DVD version of highlights of the Baltimore Orioles' three World Series victories.  I already owned the VHS versions, one of which (the 1970 World Series) had a major flaw in the audio synchronization (watching the last third of the highlights was like viewing a badly dubbed foreign film).  Finally, I could own all three highlights reels on one disc and without the sync error on the 1970 World Series.
Much to my dismay, the MLB logo is permanently, and obtrusively, displayed on the upper right corner of all three programs.  What's that all about?  Does MLB Productions think I'm going to illegally copy and distribute stills?  Thank goodness I don't own a plasma TV or I'd be staring at that stupid logo for the next five years!
Sound and picture quality are okay otherwise.  But....that logo is really annoying


Orientalism on demand
	the movie directors in the ME, particularly Iranians, are responding to demands by the West for certain type of movies. They produce what is demanded from them; in turn, they receive awards. cultural industry empowers these demands; they are the ones who will ensure that such movies will be received the Western audiences and they are the ones who decide who is awarded. There is no single ME movie which depict the story of Western imperialism in the ME and then awarded for doing so. ME movies must show that ME women are in need of emancipation; ME cultures are presented as in need of getting civilized. civilization itself is presented in vertical sense; there is a civilization somewhere out there all MEasterners are expected to reach; yet, it was that same civilization that threw doll bombs on them. (no reference to who threw them doll bombs or who mined their country; who deprived them of education and knowledge. the West is represented by beautiful, blonde nurses, a nice American guy who just pretend to be a doctor and help them with his "everyday Western knowledge of medicine" in the midst of total ignorance, and the helicopters that threw on them fake legs. such a nice way to civilize!)
the story of Afghanistan is real. however, the movie does not render a fair job in reflecting the background of it. rather, it does an excellent job in meeting the cultural demand; in producing a product that can sell well.
the situation is miserable; but what caused such misery in Afghanistan? your answer after seeing the movie will be that it is Islam; it is that Islamic culture; that backward culture of those people with wonderful eyes. such a conclusion is strongly demanded in the absence of other factors. there is no single implying in the movie, a smallest reference, that Afghanistan has suffered centuries old imperialism at the hands of the British and then the Russian and now Americans who played their Great Game on the chessboard of Eurasia. There is a passage in the movie to the effect that somebody will come to liberate them. those imperialists came in the name of civilization; French did to Algeria, the British did to India; all in the name of bringing them civilization. It was White Man's Burden to do so. Yet Makhmalbaf needs more awards. he has to compete in the cultural circus and perform well for the pleasure of Western audiences, in order to continue to be in demand. you did a nice job, applauses; go on.
(anyone who is interested in cultural imperialism should read Foucault's works and Edward Said's Orientalism.


Really, truly, awful
	In the film commentary, Director Robert Altman said he thought a really good film should leave people saying, 'I don't know what it was about but I really liked it.' (That's a paraphrase). And I think that's the key to why this film is so bad: The director didn't know what it was about.

The weird, atonal score by Gerald Busby was an annoyance throughout, often drowning out the dialog. It's the kind of creepy music that comes in most horror movies just before the space aliens are going to appear, or in a psychological thriller, just as the nutcase is transforming into a psycho. Only in this film, the creepy music played on and on. That was it. No nuances, no alteration, no variance, no imagination. Just the same creepy atonal 'psycho' music all the time.

Duvall and Spacek did a good job but the writing and directing were abysmal. Lots of shots where the camera stays on the actor for a loooong time, and dream-like sequences, conveying... mystery? suspense? drama what? Ah..I got it, they convey CONFUSION! That's it! The writer/director was confused!

A waste of talent, and a waste of my time watching it. It is one of those films I watched thinking it HAD to get better. It didn't.


What's up Charlie Brown?
	This was a wishy washy attempt at the truth. The facts are there in parts and pieces, but it was not really put together well. Some of the choices of material are questionable as being truly valuable to the topic. This DVD had an agenda and is not unbiased, and I think it failed at it's overall agenda. There is more than enough information pre-9/11 and post-9/11 to put together something more worthy and accurate than this DVD has attempted to do. If this is the best contrasting evidence to the bush administration that can be produced after all that has happened in the white house and beyond, we are truly in trouble. The truth is out there, and I think this DVD tripped over them and kept walking without looking down and gathering all the facts together. There were plenty of important facts and things said worth listening to on this DVD, but this DVD is maybe worth a glance, but not a long hard look.


Ratner is a lousy film maker....
	This man is like Michael Bay.  Using high speed action sequences and terrible casting and script writing, the fact that Chris Tucker appears in this and almost every movie that the man makes signals a trend to do these as not so much movies as they are music video comedys only it's patheic and not funny, and that is also why the man who is now making X-Men 3 will cause that movie franchise to die a quick death at the movies.  The man is a joke


movie for morons
	This movie is an insult to merely bad comedies. Gee, another movie with a fast-talking, potty-mouthed, black guy (hello Eddie Murphy) who, because it's perfectly fine in ultra-lib, pc Hollyweird, calls Charlie Sheen (and everyone else who is not Black) a host of nasty, racially-oriented names. The movie is a mess. Let's see. The protagonist (Tucker) plays a con men who after being falsely suspected of being a cop-killer, is chased around  by cops and the bad guys. The McGuffin is a sack of diamonds. Sheen is supposed to be a co-star, but like most of his other movies, he sleepwalks through it. Clearly this movie is meant to be a vehicle for Tucker. The sceenwriters were obviously making it up as they went along. First "screenwriter":" Hey Bob, what will we have Tucker do next? Hey I know, let's have a car chase and have him call some people some names" Second "screenwriter" "Hey, great idea Fred, I sure don't have any ideas".  Apparently there are many people who think this guy is funny even though the movie is a rip-off of Murphy the Trickster flicks. Basically the plot is Tucker runs around dodging bullets and calling everyone a name. If that's your idea of humor, I pity you.


Pul-eese. Why did they have to make this movie?
	I have only one question about this movie. And that is, Why in the world did they change so many things that were in the book?

If you haven't read the book than you don't know what I'm talking about. But if you have, then you do.

I can't even begin to explain how good of a movie this would've been if it had been adapted correctly. Half the time while watching this, I felt as if I was watching Teletubies or something, the colors were so bright.

If this movie had been placed in the correct time period with correct costumes, locations, characters, and details from the story,then EVERYONE would love it. Not just 5 year olds.

It makes me so angry when I watch this movie. Yes, its funny and charming but it is so embarrassing. Everytime I loan someone the book, I have to explain to them that it is nothing like the movie at all. In fact, it is a hundred times better. More even.

I am really disappointed. I just don't get how Gail Carson Levine would agree to all the changes that were made. If someone ever gets the courage to adapt the book into another movie, than I suggest they do it right. And if they do, then I'll be very thankful.

I just don't get it. The book is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better. You wouldn't believe how much better it is.

I am truely ashamed that this movie is even related in any way to the book. Next time, please, please, do it right


Not worth it
	First of all, 1 hour worth of workouts is not sufficient for 20 bucks.  Second of all, I missed the section that explained the requirement of a workout bench and dumbells to do most everything in the video so that was a pain.  Also, regardless of the fact that one girl does a beginners version of the excercises, it is still moderately difficult


Praying for engine trouble!
	Saw this as an inflight movie. Boy, did I pray for engine trouble, so we'd have to land and I could get away! Sucks or what? I liked Smith in 'I, robot', 'Independence day', etc, but this was awful. It's a one-joke movie. Problem is, the one joke was the one plastered all over the TV spots and trailers (the jet ski incident). The highlights involved the subplot of him teaching a guy to be cool - wish that'd been the main storyline instead - far, far superior! Will not be adding this to my wishlist


awful, horrible, ridiculous.
	i cannot get thru this one.  i started fast-forwarding but there didn't appear to have any good spots.  when i saw that christian cammpbell was in this, i thought, this has to be good.  i had just finished a movie where he starred.  can't remember the name of it.  i guess a person should never buy a movie because of who stars in it.  tori spelling is well known, but not to me.  someone should have put her out of her misery right from the start.  she does not play a flake very well, and i don't know what to call her except a flake.  i stopped this dvd in about the first 1/2 hour and will go back and give it another shot, but with tori spelling as one of the leads, i already know this one does not have a prayer.  i would say; save your money on this one unless you are under 13.  i have a ton of straight and gay movies that tell a story and a couple or few that don't.  this one falls into this category. one that came with this one was "the broken hearts club" and while not my cup of tea it was far superior to this piece of garbage.


Trite
	The Fridays gang steals some diamonds.  Mike Epps is not Chris Tucker no matter how hard he tries to be.  His constant whinning is enough to ride my last nerve.  Plus, everything about the movie is just campy and just wholly unbelieveable that I don't know where to begin.  Whatever you do don't buy or rent this garbage-wait to catch it on TBS or something


How bad can a movie be?
	Wow.  It's rare I consider a movie absolutely horrendous, but this one qualifies.  We are given absolutely no reason whatsoever to care for this guy, and halfway through this tedious excuse for a movie, I found myself yelling "DIE already".  When he doesn't kill himself in the end, all I wanted to do was shove him face down in the ocean and drown him.  A dumb stupid awful "indie" movie that is a waste of film, time and effort


Sean Mcginly Fan disapointed
	im a huge fan of writer Sean Mcginly, his classics include Venomous starring Treat williams and Sonic Impact with Ice-T.  Mcginly's films are the topic of discussion at film schools all across the world, he is a renowned talent and i have to say that i was appalled when i saw his latest film Two Days.  i think he should stick to writing as the film was virtually without direction and the cast (which included hacks like Paul Rudd) was not in the same league as superstars Traci Bingham and Ice-T who have graced some of his previous work.  Please Sean, stick to doing what you know best and stay away from the intellectual stuff, leave that to idiots like Capra, Wenders, Scorcese etc.  They are not in your league.


Free to Be You and Me - As Long As You Are Like Me
	I rented this on a whim and it brought back a lot of memories from my 1970s days in elementary school.  This video made its rounds in the public schools.  The songs are catchy and the film quality is good.

But make no mistake, this is propaganda aimed at children.  I will not be showing it to my kids.

Despite the freewheeling title, the message is that girls will find happiness only if they mimic boys.

Case in point:  Atalanta, a princess, finds happiness when she competes with men in a footrace and when she rejects marriage so she can travel the world (on her father's horse).  She also designs and fabricates rocketships in her spare time.

Juxtapose that story with another cartoon where a femine girl in a pink dress and curls is devoured by tigers when she follows the custom of "ladies first."  The tigers abide her request and throw her into a boiling cauldron.  The narrator advises us that the boiling girl makes a very tasty meal.

Our "hosts", infant puppets voiced by Mel Brooks and Marlo Thomas, are revolting.  There should be a law against using Mel Brooks' voice for a baby.  Apparently, I repressed memories of these creatures, but seeing them again brought back the horror.  Needless to say, I fast forwarded through the disturbing puppetry.

Overall, this DVD is fun for thirtysomethings but should be kept away from children


Not Even Worth Finishing
	Saw the previews of the first movie, but I wasn't expecting too much from that. I tried to finish both the first and the second, but that didn't work out too well...I felt these films didn't deserved to be watched all the way to the end. I don't know how some of y'all were able to sit through this poor excuse of a movie, and that includes the first. All I really have to say is you if you like this movie or maybe a better version of it...Y'all should really consider watching Cops and those insane police chases shown on TV. After all this is just another episode of Cops with guest actors in it


Pathetic
	Can't remember when I've seen a film with more depraved and pathetic characters than this.   A has-been silent screen star who lives in a sinister dark house surrounded by a gzillion of her own photos and a weirdo butler essentially kidnap a holiday screen writer, down on his luck.  The writer wanders onto what appears to be deserted property, and hides his car trying to escape a Finance Co. The  threesome make the creepiest trio you could ever imagine.   In one early scene they have a funeral, casket and all, for a monkey.  Yuk.

Gloria Swanson was directed to play a woman who still thinks she can make a come back by writing her own script, though she despises movies that "talk".   She waves her hands about, and makes strange corny expressions with her face in every scene. She falls for the screen writer, William Holden, and won't let him out of her sight.  The film was made in 1950, and Swanson is supposed to be playing a woman of only 50, not exacty over the hill (if we look at many of today's movie stars.)   But she's treated in the film as though she much, much older.  I thought she was supposed to be about 75 or so, but her age is mentioned towards the end of the film.  My heavens, at 50 she could still be in movies, and from the amount of money she apparently had, didn't need to be living in such a dark, creepy house.  Film didn't make sense.

Sorry I bought it.  It was ridiculous.


I also was mislead by the title! Now I have to ship back!
	I just opened a box with a Cesar Millan book and THIS DVD. Imagine my surprise. I don't like the pairing of this book with Cesar's stuff either! Now I have an extra errand and cost to ship back. If anything like this ever happens again, there are other sites to order from online. I don't want it to be too much work to browse and "study" the copy...I feel a bit cheated


Don't Say a Word  (2001)
	Director:  Gary Fleder
Cast:  Michael Douglas, Sean Bean, Brittany Murphy, Skye McCole Bartusiask, Guy Torry, Jennifer Esposito, Shawn Doyle, Victor Argo, Conrad Goode, Paul Schulze, Lance Reddick, Famke Janssen.
Running Time:  113 minutes
Rated R for violence, including some gruesome images, and language.

Every fall, Hollywood trots out their latest thrillers, attempting to cash in on the college crowd who wants to bring their dates to a dark theater and take advantage of the squeamishness of the content on the screen; there is a hidden connection in the biting of nails and the changing of the leaves, yet without fail every year there are enough thrillers to keep manicurists in business. Nothing sums up the quintessential fall thriller quite like "Don't Say A Word", a suspense romp as routine as they come.  Diverting enough to fool you into a good time, "Don't Say A Word" makes one wish for a leap in time to the holiday Oscar contenders already.  Dr. Nathan Conrad (Michael Douglas) is a successful psychiatrist with a beautiful wife (Famke Janssen) and a cherubic daughter. On Thanksgiving morning, a group of bad guys, lead by Patrick Koster (Sean Bean), break into Nathan's apartment and kidnap his daughter. What the men want is a jewel they lost 10 years earlier in a botched robbery that is being held in a secret place by Elisabeth Burrows (Brittany Murphy), a mentally unstable young girl rotting away in a hospital. Since Nathan seems to be the only medical professional she trusts, Patrick uses him as a pawn to recover the jewel. Nathan is soon at the mercy of the kidnappers, but as he gets deeper into Elisabeth's mind, he realizes the young girl could be helped after all.

It's perfect casting to place Michael Douglas in the lead role, as no one could play yuppie paranoia quite like he can. Douglas has perfected this type of performance into an art form with his work in "Fatal Attraction" and "A Perfect Murder; Douglas is a little more subdued than normal in this film, as his aging seems to be wearing away his ability to play the hot, rich stud who gets in over his head. The film does contain many moments of pure distressed Douglas (his forte), with his hair glistening, teeth clenched and his eyes scanning the room, etc. Douglas, at least in the first act of the film, makes an attempt to carry the picture with his expected bag of tricks. Soon enough, director Gary Fleder places too much narrative nonsense on Douglas's shoulders, and the actor eventually just gives up and lets the genre's conventions take him to the safety of the end credits.  Director Gary Fleder is no stranger to the fall thriller game, having directed both "Kiss The Girls" and the rollicking "Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead." Not really an imaginative director, Fleder nevertheless can be counted on to get the job done. With "Don't Say A Word," Fleder isn't working with a particularly good script, so he falls back on what has worked for him before. This plan of attack from Fleder leaves the picture stale and overtly familiar. The film is not interested in adding new elements to the plot to keep things at least appearing fresh. The end result making "Don't Say A Word" more boring than exciting.

The thriller, which is set in New York City, uses the city and apartment locations well, creating a nice sense of claustrophobia. It is when the action suddenly leaves the confines of the city and moves to a cemetery in a nearby island that the picture loses quite a bit of tension and interest. Moving to an obviously-a-soundstage cemetery ruins the fun of seeing the character freak out in their narrow apartments and office spaces. The film must end with a clich d showdown, which is the reason for the move to a different location, but Fleder makes a big mistake taking the story away from the grip of the big bad city.  The one element that Fleder does get right is the casting of actress Brittany Murphy. A powderkeg of emotions, Murphy is the perfect choice to play the deranged Elisabeth. Murphy is a grand talent (where is her Emmy for her voice work as Luanne Platter on "King Of The Hill"?), and the only actress in Hollywood that truly achieves success as both a tormented patient and a cute, little princess ("Just Married", "Uptown Girls"). Unpredictable and bristling with untapped passions, Murphy makes a vivid impression in "Don't Say A Word."  You've seen this type of film before, and just because it's the time of year when apples taste the best doesn't make this barely alive thriller any more enjoyable. For fans of the genre, "Don't Say A Word" is another solid installment in the Michael Douglas versus New York crime saga. Just don't expect any surprises


I'm is sequal hell.
	What is the deal. Cant Hollywood leave well enough alone. How many classic animated movies are they going to ruin with sequels? Let me think, their was Balto 2, Little Mermaid 2, Aladdin 2 and three, Secret of Nimh 2, Land before time 2,3,4,5,6,7 etc. enough already. Next thing you know they'll be making a Lion King 2, and a Buity and the Beast 2. O wait, they already did that didn't they. All the movies I have named were great originals but God awful sequels. ADGTH 2 is just as bad. If you loved the original, STAY AWAY FROM ITS SEQUAL.


What a soundtrack. Too bad the movie couldn't keep up.
	This movie is one of cinema history's seminal examples of a soundtrack carrying a movie to success. "Saturday Night Fever" from a few years before is another example, but that movie could actually stand on its own. Jennifer Beales' torn neck sweater and table dancing routine aside, I don't think this one could.

I understand this movie is near and dear to the hearts of a lot of 80's children, and I will agree this is one of the all-time great soundtracks of cinema. The problem is, the movie's plot is a slow-moving, wasted opportunity.

Physically, Beales is sexy enough to keep your attention, and her portrayal of working-class girl in a man's job striving to express herself was a pretty novel idea when this movie was made. But her unsympathetic personality and mediocre acting undermine her character. Come to think of it, the acting all around is a bit weak.

But that's not the problem. The movie suffers from two fatal let-downs. The first is the plot itself. Feminism-affirming depictions aside, it's pretty simplistic, unimaginative stuff, even for a dance movie. What's worse is how slow it all moves. The drama sequences in-between dances drag on, straining your patience and sympathy for the character's plights.

The other more tragic flaw, since it is a movie about dance, is the cinematography. While it's certainly not the worst cinematography ever, (check out "the Limey" next time you want a headache.) the dance sequences look like they've been salvaged from scraps on the cutting room floor. We're supposed to be moved by Beales' character's natural talent, but for most of the movie we never get to see her do much except walk and pose in a crazy mashup of bad edits. By the time the final dance scene finally comes along, the drama of her audition performance is ruined by drawn-out, bad editing. It almost seems the judges let her into Juliard simply because she was able to stay in the air for longer than a minute.

Perhaps I'm a purist for asking for good dancing onscreen to consist of more than rapid-fire editing. But if it's a movie about dancing, one would think the least they could do is show dancing. Many movies before and after Flashdance managed to get this right ("Saturday Night Fever" certainly did, to its great success), but maybe nobody told this movie's director. It's a shame


Shirley MacLaine's Best Movie?
	This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The characters are unlikeable except for Charity's two friends. The songs are far too long and I had to fast forward through most of them because they were so dull. I was especially disappointed with Big Spender because I love the song and expected a spectacular dance number from Bob Fosse and all they did was stand there draped over the bar. The only redeeming factor was that Sammy Davis Jr. was in it. He's awesome even though the song was fairly stupid. This was my first Shirley MacLaine film and on the back it said that Sweet Charity was her best movie. I have no desire to see her other movies then


Doesn't hold a candle to the original
	This is a remake of An Affair to Remember with Cary Grant and Deborah and it does not work. Some movies just should not be remade. The ONLY thing good about this movie is Katharine Hepburn's appearance. Get the original


A Disappointment
	First of all, I am a Joy Division and New Order fan; therefore, I tried to like this.  Really, I did.

Sadly, this film stinks.  The focus is not on the bands themselves, but on the obnoxious character known as Tony Wilson.  What a monster!  Either it was the actor's depiction or he does truly have a horrid personality in real life.

Maybe I'm not British, but I did not find 24 Hour Party People to be very funny.  Only a few scenes made me grin.  The randomness added very little to the overall quality of the film.

In addition, the camera work was very jerky.  Looked like it was done by a novice (and yes, I'm one myself, having made two movies)

The only redeeming aspect has to be the scenes with Joy Division.  Too bad the members of this band are minor characters.  I can only hope that the biopic of Ian Curtis currently in production will be much, much better


waggy mcwaggster
	Man! this movie is soooooo boring. I literally slept through this movie. If I die not having watched it again ill be happy.   i dont even know what its about cuz i watched it when i was like 5 yrs. old, but i dont care cuz just thinkin bout it makes me wanna cr


Big name cast adds up to unfocussed dud. The worst movie of this genre.
	Incredible does describe this movie- incredibly bad! This movie doesn't know what it wants to be. At times one can see attempts to recreate and milk the genuine rage and drama of "Mississippi Burning" or the anger and impunity of "Ghosts of Mississippi", or a hybrid of those and bits and pieces of other movies of this genre. At other times it looks like its just trying to draw from the sex appeal and cheesy interaction of 2 of its main actors, Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock. As a result this movie picks up the rear in that genre's list of movies for lack of originality, and the scattered hodge podge statements it tries to make. Some of my favorite actors are wasted, either by being given cliched dialogue, over acting, or being put there merely for their brand name with no script to support their presence. If this script is considered a great adaptation of a great book, then I have no interest in reading the book. I'm sure the idea and the premise looked good on paper. But the direction doesn't guide the story with any coherence or identity of its own.  Bullock is mere cheesecake and is unbelievable in her role, proving she's only worthy of b-grade "Miss Congeniality" type crud.  McConaughey over acts so much (as can be said for Keifer Sutherland and others) that it can be said he balances out the under acting of Patrick McGoohan, Kevin Spacey and Donald Sutherland. Samuel L. Jackson should be ashamed of himself of not only his worst performance ever, but also easily his worst choice of movies to participate in.  Even the extras in this movie are horrible. Enough can't be said about the terrible direction in this movie, equating elongated facial shots with drama to a fault, making Sergio Leone westerns look much more authentic by comparison. This is not "a powerful film." It's a powerful attempt at using a big name cast, a brand name book and a capable director to use material that they know would easily jerk the emotions of its audience, and in doing that they resort to all the cliches of this genre scattering the story line in so many directions, culminating in an over the top, pleading hunk of cheese summation scene by McConaughey that wouldn't hold water in any real court of justice. Maybe people claim greatness to this movie out of guilt, or because they haven't seen quality comparisons and classics like "Mississippis Burning," that has both a great script and fabulous acting. I don't know. All I know is it tugs from so many hokey directions it takes the final scene to remind everyone how it started. Among the top of my most over rated movies


Failed Miserably
	I went into this movie thinking it would be great to see a film set in the turbulent but interesting history of first settlements in the far north of Northern America. Having only really seen Pocahontas through the eyes of Disney, I felt this would be a good chance to see something more significant and engaging on one of histories more interesting events.

Like other reviewers, I found the photography and the scenery to be simply stunning. Visually, the film wows the viewer. The scenes simply amaze with their beauty, the sets with their majesty and also rustic simplicity. Coupled with the musical score, this was some of the best camera work I have seen in a long time. This was, in my opinion, the sole redeeming feature of the film.

While the filme attempted to contemplate serious and deep issues of love, allegiance and so on, it succeeded in only boring the tears out this viewer with the monotonous monologues of the characters done as long lengths of naration. In one part, the plot lost some continuity and needed reviewing to get to grips with what had happened.

For actors of the calibre of Colin Farrell and Christian Bale, this film did not show them at their best. Certainly not the worst I have seen by any stretch, but definitely not the best I have seen from either one of these actors.

Tread with caution on this one, and hire it before you buy it. I am glad I did not spend good money purchasing it. Quite frankly, it is a great cure for insomnia


Surprisingly slight and insubstantial
	The New World is the least of Terrence Malick's limited filmography to date, and could be best described as a monotone poem. It's not exactly bad, just mundane and rather forgettable even while you're watching it, more of a self-indulgence than a genuine attempt to communicate with an audience. Visually it often seems surprisingly flat and uninspired, while the script comprises of far too many trite voice over questions s-p-o-k-e-n v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y i-n h-u-s-h-e-d t-o-n-e-s against selections from his classical music collection, which doesn't magically render them profound but simply makes the film evenly paced to the point where nothing can stand out: even the battle sequence takes time out for more musings. Another big problem is the miscasting of the inexplicably prolific Colin Farrell, a nice enough lad offscreen I'm sure but an extraordinarily limited actor who just cannot carry a picture no matter how many chances he's given. True to form he trots out his two `important picture' expressions - the Bambi-caught-in-the-headlights-of-an-oncoming-car one and the one he thinks looks serious but simply makes him look like he's not been getting enough roughage in his diet. The fact that he's outshone by Q'orianka Kilcher in her first speaking part speaks volumes of his inadequacy, although to be fair he has been worse. Indeed, among the male leads Christian Bale does much, much more with much, much less in the last third of the film, as does a typically underused Christopher Plummer in the first third.

Malick is very good at the madness and mutiny that infects the deluded settlers of Jamestown, but because it happens to people we've barely been introduced to it carries no emotional or dramatic weight. If anything, it just made me think of how much more Herzog could have made of it all. Moments work, most notably the expulsion of the `Naturals' from their land and the brief latter sequences in England, but on the evidence of the 135-minute version I very much doubt Malick's promised longer cut will solve the problems. I know it's meant to be a work of art, but I just came away with the feeling that I'd watched an old and very average Universal International 50s Western redubbed by first-year philosophy students. The only surprise was that Jeff Chandler and his bouncing Basques didn't crop up.


lots of visual style.......little substance
	me and my partner are both real open minded people who enjoy a huge range of films. And we do really like The Thin Red Line. But this was a real boring piece of film making.....The whole film was just one huge poetry reading and I prefer to read poetry from a book.....It just doesn't goe anywhere and we found the love scenes even worse than those directed by George Lucas.Even the battle scenes were just poetry readings..........Watch Thin Red Line instead if you are interested in this director's work...That film is a masterpiece....This isn't


Crammed a 1 hour movie into 3 = BORED out of my mind!!!
	This movie is quite possibly the biggest waste of Christian Bale and Colin Farrell to date.  It was boring, overblown and incessantly long.  It's one of those movies where you keep hoping it will get better, but it never does - and then it just ends.  Don't waste the time or the money


Really Really Really Bad
	Off-hand, I can't think of a worse movie. (And I think Nicolas Cage has done some truly awesome work in other films--hey, he's making a buck, here.) That's all. 1/32 star, if possible


Never received product.
	I never received product as they never shipped it. Amazon sent me an email stating that they couldn't complete my order as it was "non-deliverable".. Not sure what that means if every other item I purchase is "deliverable"


ugh
	This is an extremely dry anime.  The manga version by Masamune Shirow is filled with bits of humor.  Not so for the anime.  The character Batou was especially funny in the manga, but, for reasons unknown, he is the driest character in the already humorless anime version.
Expect long scenes filled with monotonous talking.  These really make the movie crawl.  One minute there's action, next you're listening to Matoko or Batou go on and on about existentialism.  Seriously, these little talks, take up 3/4 of the movie.
The visuals are awesome, no question about that.  Even so, they do not fulfill the need for SOME kind of thread of a story.  Altogether, not much actually, HAPPENS during the movie.
If you must see it, rent it first to be sure you want it


A good ole Rebel, New Orleans
	I will not watch the movie "Andersonville" until they make a movie called "Elmira"(the camp in Elmira, N.Y., the worst of the Union prison camps had 35% death rate)


Here we go again
	I gave this movie 1 star because it is not a true documentary.  It falls more along the same fodder as "Spinal Tap".  It is missing a counter point from GM.  One could argue that Roger had chances to talk with Moore, but choose not to.  One the other hand, Rogers missing interview is what gave the movie such an emotional hold.  I believe that Moore counted on not being granted air time at GM for the production of this film.  An interview would have killed the tone.
  Watch the nightly news NOW.  Last night, March 22nd 2006, GM offered a one time buy out to some of it's employees.  The news reported that GM cannot afford to maintain its relationship with the UAW (Just like what caused the Flint situation in the film).  This same thing happened in the late 1980's and brought forth this extremely biased movie.  This film is entertaining in a strange way, but should not be considered to be the absolute truth.  Watch it with a grain of salt.
For what it's worth,
Under close examination,
Careful consideration and
Keen intellect, you will see a undercover message
You might need to examine closely the content.
Outwardly, things are not what they seem
Until you look more closely.
Many times the basic concept is
Misread in the dialog
Once you see this, and
Open your mind to it,
Rational thought will
Emerge


The Lisbon Suicides
	Therese, Lux, Mary, Bonnie and Cecilia make up the five Lisbon girls, ages 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Cecilia, the youngest, lives in her sisters shadows because they are all older and of much more interest to their male neighbors. As a cry for help, she slits her wrists and lays down in the bathtub, she survived the incident. After a psychiatrist highly impresses upon the strict Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon that it would be benificial for Cecilia to be exposed to environments which have boys her own age, Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon decide to allow the girls to throw the one and only Lisbon party. Some of the neighborhood's boys are invited over and while the party is in session, Cecilia is pretty inanimate, sitting on the couch while her sisters flirt, talk and laugh. Midway through the party, Cecilia asks to be excused and Mrs. Lisbon - though somewhat reluctantly - allows it. Cecilia goes up to her room (on the second floor of a two-story house) and jumps out the window, landing on the spiked fence on the front lawn of the Lisbon house. In this way, Cecilia Lisbon commited suicide. Only four girls remain.

The act which Cecilia committed did not go at all unnoticed. The father saw her immediately, the party ended there and all of the boys went home rather glum. Four of the Lisbon's neighbors, four young boys, suffered a rapidly growing obsession with the Lisbon girls, who were beautiful and a total mystery to the outside world. They got hold of Cecilia's diary and tried to explain why she committed suicide. The eldest decided Cecilia was a dreamer, and she did not think she would fall when she jumped out her window, she thought she would fly.

With their youngest sister gone, the remaining Lisbon girls grow closer to each other, stranding themselves further from the outside world. When school starts again, they attempt to go on acting as if nothing happened, not ever mentioning their youngest sister. The run-of-the-mill awkward act is taken part by the rest of the school however. The usual profuse apology to the mention of the word "death" and the like.

Trip Fontaine is the most popular guy in school, the object of desire to all of the girls at school... Except for the Lisbon girls, which is of no importance to Trip until he sets eyes on Lux. Trip cannot help but be enchanted by her flawless beauty. In the beginning, he is unsuccessful in his quest to even catch her attention for she bluntly shows she's not interested. But after his consistent courtship, Lux falls for his charming ways. Trip then attempts to convince Mr. Lisbon to let him and three of his football team pals take the Lisbon daughters to Homecoming. After Mr. Lisbon talks to his wife, he agrees to Trip's request, knowing nothing but Trip's sincerity and claimed honorable intentions, on the understanding that Trip have all of the Lisbon girls returned to the house by curfew.

After Trip explains the situation to his football peers, he gives in to those who bribe him the most handsomely. Meanwhile, the Lisbon girls are picking out fabric for the dresses they shall wear to the Homecoming Dance. Though one pattern is used for all four dresses, each dress looks unique when concentrating on detail. Once they pick up the girls, they stop midway to the Homecoming in order to smoke, Lux being the only girl volunteering to smoke.
They then drive to the dance. Trip and Lux sneak away and sneak swallows of alcohol. Another one of the Lisbon sisters and her date follow, but leave soon afterwards, not being as wild nor daring as Trip and Lux. At the time they all decided to meet back at the car so they could make the girls curfew, they are all there... Except for Trip and Lux, who at that time were alone in the middle of the football stadium field. Deciding they must make their own curfews, Therese, Bonnie, Mary and their dates leave without them. After fooling around, the intoxicated Trip and Lux fall asleep in the middle of the football stadium. Trip awakens in the middle of the night and leaves Lux there alone. When Lux wakes up early the next morning she is confused as to why Trip is not there. She takes a taxi home and her parents were worried sick (of course). But they take measures as far as pulling the girls out of school and stranding them inside the Lisbon residence.

The girls, in a desperate attempt to hold onto a connection to the outside world, begin using morse code to interact with the four boys who so closely follow their lives. One of which boys lived across the street and the rest which came over daily after this in order to contact the girls. Soon following, the boys begin talking to the Lisbon girls via phone. One day, the girls invite the boys to come over once Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon are asleep. The plan being that the boys were to drive the girls somewhere, the boys hastily agree. They sneak over and Lux invites them to wait inside for her sisters and Lux goes to wait in the car. The boys wander down to the basement while waiting for Therese, Bonnie and Mary, verbally expressing their hopes for the night. But then they realize they have stumbled upon one of the sisters. She had hung herself. The boys, scared to death, run all the way home. Time passed, things changed, girls came and went... But no matter what, those four boys NEVER forgot the Lisbon suicides.

Ultimately, the movie was nothing short of queer. When trying to sum up the story in a few lines (such as "Follow the lives of the Lisbon sisters and how they connect to their neighbors. A story full of obsession, gossip, lust, love, desire and isolation.") the story sounds quite unique and intriguing, but the story fell short of that for me personally. Partly because the Lisbon sisters really committed suicide for a reason not much deeper than isolation. The movie, in places, is also extremely flawed. I do not believe Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon could've removed their daughters from school for so long without their daughters being taken from them by social services. In many parts of the movie, they should've used upbeat music to fill the deafening silences. The whole movie was filmed in a style that I can truthfully say makes me rather bored. I would only suggest this film to, perhaps, people who like movies such as "Elizabethtown" which Kirsten Dunst is also in. But I personally disliked this movie which was not very tasteful and will not be watching it again in the future


Great Acting Ruined By Politics
	Stellar performances by all actors and actresses involved in this movie are ruined by the sheer ignorance of the topic. Not one single "fact" about guns contained in this movie was true and at the end of the film I had nothing but an overwhelming feeling that the bad guys had clearly won. What a crock


The can be written for a Democrat, or Republican
	For that matter it can be written for any party candidate that wants the truth of his/her dirty secrets covered up. I feel that it's the most insulting film to be released. It hides the fact that we as citizens, and our government don't really care about who we stick in office. If the party lines up with what we believe in screw the fact he had to cover something up. I can't fathom why we continue to fall for this all the time, and believe me I don't feel it's right to air it all over the news either. I feel that it comes down to the man, and if he does have the values his/her party believes in then he will do the honorable thing, and own up to his/her mistake. This movie is just another nail to drive into the justification that it's alright to cover things up, and there are no absolutes, or rights or wrongs. Wht happens when we tick off the wrong person who's rich? Do we wait until then to change the moral? That's Pathetic, and so is this movie


Another disappointing Marvel movie
	Who's idea was it to put Jessica Alba as Sue Storm?  Chris Evans's portrayal of Johnny Storm was somewhat disappointing too, although not as bad as Jessica Alba's portrayal of Sue Storm.  Why do they cast Hollywood big names in these movies just for the sake of having big celebrities in these movies?  They really need to cast people who actually fit the roles and have talent for portraying the characters.  This movie was somewhat good, but it didn't feel all that great.  So far, this movie is just another of Marvel's somewhat disappointing movies along the lines of Elektra, The Incredible Hulk, Xmen 3, Daredevil, and The Punisher.  I was so happy to see Marvel characters getting their own movies, but after seeing what Hollywood does to them, I would rather see Marvel's chracters go back into hiding.  Special effects were good in this movie, and so was the story.  Michael Chiklis as the Thing was great, and his The Thing character makeup was done very well, and he played the character well too, as did Ioan Gruffud with Mr. Fantastic.  Jessica Alba and Chris Evans definitely demoted this movie


Dated and Dull
	The central idea of this movie is the activities a 1920's Robin Hood and his band of gangsters. Unfortunately, even the Rat Pack cannot save this movie. The script is slow, dated,and dull. Barbara Rush's scenes are especially confusing. Her scenes almost seem to be part of a different movie. Nothing comes of her apparent interest in Sinatra or Martin which makes me wonder why they made the final cut. The main actors seemed to be bored, and with the exceptions of Bing Crosby and Peter Falk, walked through their performances. (Maybe they were hung over most of the time?)
Save your money and borrow it from your local library.


Well that was tedious
	Well folks, looks like we may have the most over praised movie of the current millennium right here. ("Crash" comes close, but that film has a lot more detractors than this one, and many of those who liked it seemed to do so because they imagined, somehow, that it would "change the world".)  My beefs are not the same as most of those who don't like the film:  I don't much care that it may show an unrealistic picture of drug abuse, nor do I find it overly depressing.  Fact is, it isn't depressing at all cause I didn't care.  It's just boring and annoying, sometimes at different moments, sometimes simultaneously.  This not a good combination.

All right, here's a plot summary:  Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn all do drugs, and this really messes up their lives. I hate to give it all away like that, but there it is.  The fundamental flaw is this: I don't like any of these people, so their pain doesn't mean anything, and since that is all there is to this movie it absolutely fails to have any sort of effect.  Maybe if Aronofsky had put more time in to characterization it would've worked, but now there just isn't anything there.  As far as what's actually in the movie, we've got  Jared Leto as a stupid chunkhead who has inane conversations with his equally chunkheaded girlfriend Jennifer Connelly, who wants to be a fashion designer, or something.  Beyond this we've got Jared's mother, Ellen Burstyn, who is a weird old woman and Marlon Wayans as Leto's friend who deals drugs with him at times and appears headed towards the big leagues.  I particularly love how there's no real attempt to make Wayans into a person.  He's got one flashback about how he wanted to make his mom proud and that's it.  The doubly sad fact is that he's the most likable of the three.  He at least displays a little life.  Connelly and Leto apparently just wandered here from a Bergman film and are so dull and slow that it's a wonder that the smack doesn't cause them to cease to exist entirely.  (Well, Connelly actually does coke, I think, but it fails to liven her up any.  Also, I actually *like* the Bergman films I've seen, so that's not really a fair comparison.)  They love each other, apparently, but since I don't even like either of them I'm not much interested.  Finally, Burstyn is mostly just creepy though her performance does take a turn for the hilarious as she goes off the deep end.  Perhaps it wouldn't have been funny if I cared about her, but we've been over that...

And I want you people to know that I'm not utterly heartless when it comes to movies.  I can care about the characters, but none of these people did anything for me, so the movie's dead in the water.  For good counter examples watch "Trainspotting", which has drug-addict characters with enough humor and life to be likable and interesting and "Bubba Ho-Tep", a film which displays the plight of the lonely elderly 50 times better than this film despite being a silly horror-comedy with a mummy in a cowboy outfit in it.  On the other hand, neither of those movies is nearly as pretentious as "Requiem For A Dream", so watching them will do nothing to stroke your ego.  Still, if that's all you want to kinda find plenty of films better than this one for that purpose.

"Requiem For A Dream" isn't helped any by Darren Aronofsky's repetitive, derivative over-direction.  The trouble is, this movie hasn't got any plot to distract you from how redundant the visual style is.  There's nothing inherently wrong with any of his tactics, but they're hopelessly driven in to the ground, as we see fast-motion a thousand times, quick-cut montages a million times and plenty of wonky camera-attached-to-the-actor junk, and they are, again, impossible not to notice cause the plot sure ain't drawing me in.  I imagine that the overdone, repeating visual style is meant as a representation of the endless cycle found in drug use, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant or entertaining to watch.  The score suffers from the same problem as they use the same handful of themes over and over.

Truth be told, I thought this movie was pretty okay for about the first half, but then it really started to grate on me.  It became evident that no, Aronofsky wasn't going to introduce any new visual tricks and no, these characters weren't going to get any more interesting.  I looked at the timer continuously for about the last 40 minutes of the film, and was so uninvolved that the supposedly horrifying conclusion where all the characters really get it bad was utterly ineffective.  It was kind of uplifting, really:  Now that these tedious characters have finally hit rock bottom I can go do something else.  Now that's a good ending.

Grade: D+

PS This is 500 reviews.  I doubt if I will write 500 more, but who knows


Pretentious
	The only reason why I saw this was because of Susannah York. This shows she was more capable of the dix she played in  quot;The Killing of Sister George quot; and was a fine actress. Otherwise this movie is blah. It's okay to make a surreal other world but you have to make it interesting. The men in this movie are so disgusting one can't blame her for getting mad anyway. For another pointless film of this caliber see Secret Ceremony


It is worth seeing, but Michael Morre missed the point
	He thought the columbine incident was about gun control.  It was not.  It was about anger and bullying.  That is the problem.  That is what would have fixed that problem.  We need to help children be better to eachother or problems like this will keep going on.    It is worth seeing because it is interesting, but he is wrong on this one.  Micahel Moore is a good director but people are not always right


A wild, wild gimmick
	You want realism of the Old West? Try showing people frequently blowing big wads of snot out their nose and hawking green loogies onto the floor or into their sleeves because they didn't have tissues. Try having the actors and actresses go for a couple of months without washing their hair, and not brushing their teeth with toothpaste, so their hair is oily and their mouths are scuzzy and black.

THAT would be realistic, but it's a LOT more repellant to television audiences than gratuitous profanity. So this "realistic" show has characters with clean, fluffy hair and pretty teeth spew garbage langauge constantly -- and sucker viewers and reviewers buy this as "realistic"!!! Every great writer of every age and era, be it Mark Twain, Owen Wister, William Shakespeare, or John Steinbeck, or any other storyteller whose works have survived for generations, told "realistic" stories of their era but who understood what realistic trivia to keep in, and what to leave out, in order to TELL THE STORY. That is WHY their work has remained timeless.

Deadwood's writing shows a huge insecurity complex in choosing to rely on a gimmick (and a juvenile one at that) like over-the-top profanity. Whether or not the Calamity Janes of the time actually used the words "ignorant f****ng c***s" is something we will never know and is also absolutely irrelevant.

There are an awful lot of sheeple in TV land


Now a longer version of a movie that was too long?
	OK, the original is a classic and is what...90...100 minutes long? Jackson stretches it out to 3 hours and adds very little to the story.  The native were scary. The quiet scenes with Kong were welcome additions, they actually made him into a character...something that can't be said for any of the human characters.

The insect scenes are ridiculous!! The dinosaur stampede was idiotic. Anything with the young cabin boy almost seemed like it was clipped out of another movie. Now Jackson is adding 38 munutes to a movie that is grossly over padded to begin with?!?

Peter Jackson is a hack director that has no idea how to tell a story efficiently.Remind me to skip his next 15 3 hour long epics


No Habeas, not much Corpus, and definitely not Delictus
	I hate lawyers.

What is a lawyer, anyway? Basically: it's a telemarketer in a decent suit, a guy who would be hawking the latest Ronco Hair-in-a-Can super-duper late night special to folks in Akron over his plantronic headset, only he won the genetic lottery and got shot out of an upper-middle class womb.

Shakespeare said it first and best: "First, let's kill all the lawyers!". Former Enron uber-dealmaker John Wing put a little fast-times Houston spin on that one: "get all the lawyers in a room---and shoot 'em!---in the mouth, so you *can't* miss!"

Exactly. Anyway, "The Firm" is a flick that purports to make the world of high-priced yappers jaw-rippingly exciting, so I was probably all amped up to despise it.

But not really: back before I dug into a gig with the Dark Side in high finance, back when I was hefting a backpack over the sodden campus of my old alma mater, I briefly considered going into law: briefly, for about an hour. It was a desperate time, and I needed money.

Why did I consider walking Hell's Highway, if only for an instant? Because John Grisham, boring lawyer-turned-ripping-potboiler-writer-turned-back-into-boring-lawyer, a kind of Tom Clancy for the paper-pusher and green-eyeshade set, made it all sound pretty damned funky (and lucrative! Hey, dig that BMW 7 series, baby, beep beep!) in his engrossing little novel "The Firm": granted, I've read better prose on the backs of cereal boxes, but it held my attention.

I mean, seriously: you're 19, and the whole flying out on the corporate Lear to Grand Cayman and switching out briefcases full of cash sounds kinda cool. And strippers, man, plenty of strippers. Oh, and did someone mention a BMW?

What's the difference between a lawyer and a snake? The snake at least has the decency to hiss before it sinks its fangs into your a**.

Now it's true: Grisham writes like Kim Jong Il sings, but---in "The Firm", anyway---he was a master craftsman at moving things along at a bristling pace, from the pedestrian---hotshot Law School whiz kid gets picked up by a Memphis white-shoe law firm---to the Pretty Damned Atrocious, all while keeping the pressure ratcheted up with a dense, suffocating sense of malice.

Grisham, like Michael Crichton, isn't a prose genius: he's not even mediocre. But he writes for film, and "The Firm" cried out for cinematic treatment.

So it's baffling that, with all the right Stuff---Tom Cruise as winsome lead Mitch McDeere, Gene Hackman doing his chain-drinking Gene Hackman thang as the corrupt (but ultimately worn-out and pathetic) senior partner, and Sydney Pollack helming it up---that the big-screen treatment of "The Firm" is such a yawner.

Talk about contempt of court.

Pollack takes all that intricately woven little Grisham-plot and barfs big ugly chunks of it up on the screen. At its guts, really, "The Firm" was really nothing more than the Big Career Nightmare: I've bet the farm on this gig, I'm getting big money, I'm working like a fiend, my wife is having trouble remembering my name, and evidently I'm not doing tax-deals for loaded clients---I'm doing money laundering for The Mob.

Pollack just mangles the whole thing, convolutes the simple, and renders up a flick that will have you checking your watch and yawning. Casting is part of the problem: Cruise does his thing, running around Memphis with his briefcase. Hackman drinks a lot and exudes pure Armani-clad sleaze: "The Firm" is all funny-wrinkles when he's onscreen, but hey, a man can only do so much.

Jeanne Tripplehorn (Cruise's squeeze), who plays Lara San Giacomo when she's not playing Tripplehorn (seriously, google the two of 'em: astounding!) is a bitter old battleaxe who made me want to stick forks in my eyes. Wilford Brimley is just plain wrong as The Firm's security chief: too bald, too cracker, too rotund, too silly, too low-end, to do the role justice.

Holly Hunter is even worse: Hunter is one of those eighties thangs who got pumped up as Something Sexy, which is baffling, given that she's about 3'8, and has all the sex appeal of an Oompah-Loompah. It doesn't help that she's a big, ugly Southern stereotype, the caricature most denizens of dumpy Michigan towns imagine Southerners to be. You want her to die: she doesn't. Pollack wants us to think she's clever and funny. She isn't.

Ed Harris, I think, is in this movie. So is Hal Holbrook, which kinda ruins everything, because everytime Hal Holbrook is in a movie you know you're dealing with a bunch of friggin' crooks.

Anyway, the coup de grace to the stupidity is the entrance, Deus Ex Machina, of Paul Sorvino (Don Morolto---what kind of Goombah name is dat, anyway? Somebody call Tony Soprano!), who takes this juggernaut of boredom from the merely stupid to the totally ridiculous.

If you wanna see Tom Cruise running around Memphis with his briefcase for two hours, by all means belly up to the bar.

Otherwise, case dismissed.

JS


Did we see the same movie??
	Okay, the script is not the most imaginative I've ever seen, but I like the actors (especially Ben's best man) so I was friendly with this movie for the most part.  I didn't even mind the obvious holes in the plot, such as...why do these characters not have credit cards or cell phones? Or at least, why don't they use them?  Oh no, much more plausible that Ben will have to strip dance in a gay bar for $150 to buy a car to drive to NC.  I didn't even mind the fact that the whole "We're married and my husband's a doctor." charade was so predictable. Oh Gee, he's pretending to be a doctor and he's on a tour bus with a bunch of elderly people. D'ya think someone might have a heart attack and "Dr. Holmes" might have to step up?  And uh, they're pretending to be married and Oh! surprise there's the best man and maid of honor! D'ya think they're gonna get busted?

What killed it for me was that ridiculous ending.  It was obviously supposed to be a surprise (and it was) but there seemed to be no other reason for it than to pull a fast one on the audience.  I felt cheated. I spent the entire movie getting emotionally involved with the relationship between Sarah and Ben, and I really cared about how they would handle things with the fiance and Sarah's little boy and all that.  I cheerfully became disengaged from the relationship between Ben and Bridget, I totally believed neither one of them was ready to get married or right for each other.  The film spent an inordinate amount of time showing me they're not right for each other and that this wedding was not meant to happen.  RIGHT UP TO THE LAST MOMENT, we think he's breaking it off with Bridget. Instead, what the heck let's just go ahead and get married after all.

Huh?  He left Sarah sitting out there waiting for him in a HURRICANE!!! after making her promise that she would still be there when he got back.  This man obviously doesn't have a clue what he wants in life, and I'm expected to believe they lived happily ever after?

Not only that, but what does it teach us about taking this commitment seriously?  It teaches us that if our instinct is telling us "don't do it!" and our genitals are yearning for someone else and even Mother Nature seems to be working hard to prevent this marriage, aw heck go on ahead and do it anyway.  It's just marriage. It's romantic! You could get lucky and live happily ever after!

It's been my experience, when things aren't feeling just right as you approach that wedding, turn and run. The last thing you should do is close your eyes, grab your balls and take the leap


Confusing, too many characters, difficult to follow story line
	Simply put: the movie is boring.  Clich� upon clich� is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.

All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.

Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.


not better than channel surfing
	Other reviews rant about Ms. Judd; frankly, after Double Jeopardy and High Crimes, I'm not seeing the superb actress, but that's aside the point.  This movie has one point that can be summed up in this review so you can spend your time better on something else--  Search for truth, not innocence.  Especially if you are an attorney


another one of them Ashley Judd thrillers
	Ashley Judd's (Normal Life, The Locusts) husband, played by Jim Caviezel (The Passion Of The Christ, Frequency) gets arrested and put on the guilty bench for a slaughter in El Salvador a bunch of years ago. So, Judd hires the always superb Morgan Freeman (Unleashed, Million Dollar Baby) to help her out on the case and to find out the truth while she tries to get her husband out of imprisonment. Judd then has threats on her life after. The opening sequence pulls you in, the thrills are a mixed bag (car crash scene for example was good) and the outcome, well, I really saw coming anyway. Ashley Judd's thrid thriller but its her second one with a murderous manipulative husband(Double Jeopardy). Twisted and Kiss The Girls had a killer running after her or playing games with her noggin. Also starring Bruce Davison (X-Men, Dahmer), Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards, The Whole Ten Yards) and Tom Bower (Die Hard 2


Good movie.
	Funny and very inspirational. Good way to encourage young teenagers to build self esteem. If there's a will, there's a way. Anyone can dance


A Celebration of Hopelessness
	I give this film one star for the acting, which is often very good. However, the plot and message of this film revel in hopelessness, and debase every aspect of lower income, urban people. In all honesty, I've seen more joy in an African famine. I sat through this film, against my better judgement. Still, if you're truly interested in investigating the dark underbelly of urban American misery and frailty, then I recommend "A Streetcar Named Desire", "KIDS", "Last Exit to Brooklyn", and "Traffic".


maybe it just hasn't aged well...
	ok, I've only just seen this film for the first time, so it's hard to really judge the social impact it had 13 years ago and its importance in that respect, but this is not a particularly good film.

I mean, it has its choice moments where it really comes together. the shot of caine downing a 40 in the korean grocers is imaginitively directed. any scene with o-dog is almost guaranteed classic status. samuel jackson's in it. and if you're a fan of dave chapelle's tyrone biggums crackhead character, the token crackhead in this film is worth a few laughs for his to-the-tee similarity.

but that's really my problem with this film. serious issues are reduced to a series of ham-fisted archetypes straight out of central casting. and they're ALL here: the homey black grandparents, the nation of islam convert, the socially conscious mother whose son is starting to go down caine's road... all characters that might fare better in a different film that treats these issues with more subtlety and depth.

take the french film 'la haine', for instance. it clearly took a lot of inspiration from menace 2 society, boyz n tha hood, etc., but its characters actually feel tormented, instead of just having lots of scenes written FOR them to show their torment. rather than just running through a laundry list of problems, one-by-one, scene-by-scene, it really gets to the heart of something bigger, some grander alienation that urban youths feel, which is what menace 2 society would like to be able to do. plus, if you can believe it, the hip-hop in 'la haine' is quite a bit better.

so while I would definitely recommend seeing this film, keep the remote aimed and ready, finger on the fast-forward button. maybe about a half-hour of this film is really worth watching, whereas the other 70 minutes are mostly just dull moralising. oh yeah, and there's a really embarrassing-to-watch sex scene thrown in for no particular reason. oh, also, the filmmakers apparently think people who have just been shot look like they are being electrocuted while spitting out cherry slurpees. in a film that didn't try to carry so much social weight, that kind of thing would be ok because you could laugh it off as bad filmmaking, but it really just cheapens this one


Rent if you want to see, not a collectors item
	These plays were okay, I'm glad I rented them before buying them.  The props and things were very nice, the actors didn't gel well with each other or connect with their characters and the singing was mediocre ( definitely no Tyler Perry quality on that note) but the messages were good just seemed a little unrealistic and too drawn out.  I thought Alexander O'Neal sang in one of them but he didn't


"In Good Company" is not good company
	"In Good Company" goes on and on at the end a little bit, and the ending especially is not fulfilling character/plot-wise.  If it had ended 15-20 minutes before it actually did, I would give it three stars instead of two.

I admit there were quite a few times when I laughed a bit to myself, but it didn't make me fall off the couch or anything. There were other times when I thought the actions of some characters were weird or forced.

Overall it isn't an entirely bad movie, but, like I said, the ending is unfulfilling.  Overall not strong performances coming from Scarlett Johansson or Topher Grace


the book is a lot better
	i had high expectation on the video but it turned out to be quite disappointed and boring, i have to say that the one is one of my favourite books i ever rea


Dry comedy for people who don't like dry comedy
	This show deserved to get cancelled, and there's a very simple reason.  This is supposedly dry, subtle comedy for people who don't usually like dry, subtle comedy.  It's a show that was presented to the FOX audience, an audeince that normally likes the most inane, low-brow kind of humor, that doesn't know what dry comedy is and would fall for a pitiful imitation of it.

Meanwhile, to people who actually appreciate subtlety and dry humor, the so-called comedy in the show is unbelievably obvious and predictable.  Every time a line is spoken on that show that is supposed to be a joke, it's clear how forced and contrived it is, how hard the creators of this show are trying to fake dry humor, something they clearly don't understand.  It's embarrassing for someone with appreciation for humor to watch, because the jokes are so uninspired and fall so flat.  It's just an awkward mess.

But those aren't the people this show is targeted at.  It's targeted at that FOX audience who has never even seen dry humor before, and so anything even resembling it is new and amazing to them.  They think this show is brilliant because it's a little smarter than MAD TV, or at least thinks it is.  And since those are the people who are seeing the show, you hear all these people raving about how brilliant it is.  If the show were on HBO or some other network, exposed to a different kind of audience, you would hear a lot more negative response to it from people who like dry comedy that actually works.

So why did this show get cancelled, when so many people think it's so amazing?  If it's so great, people would have actually watched it, right?  So where were the ratings?  The fact is, the people who love this show are a very vocal minority.  The audience for dry humor didn't watch this show because it's not funny.  But the audience who was fooled by this show, as vocal as they are, was just too small:  they were people who were encountering something other than inanity for the first time in their lives and thought it would make them look smart to pretend to like it.

This is not one of those shows that was cancelled because it was too smart for TV, as its apologists claim.  No, it simply was a completely unfunny failure that was only impressive to people who have never heard anything but fart jokes


contrived, implausible crime drama
	"Four Brothers" is yet another nail in the coffin of John Singleton's increasingly moribund moviemaking career.  The director - who burst upon the scene in 1991 with the vibrant and gritty "Boyz n the Hood" - has here mounted a film so burdened by implausibility and contrivance that it makes one wonder if the once-promising filmmaker will ever be able to get back on track again.  The story, reeking of artificiality, features Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin and Garrett Hedlund as four troubled young men raised by the same foster mother.  When she is killed in a convenience store robbery, the quartet launches into action, seeking revenge against the perpetrators and becoming slowly convinced, through their investigation in the neighborhood, that the killing might not have been as random in nature as they had been initially led to believe.

The main weakness of this film is that it gives us virtually no reason to care about any of the characters.  By not showing us any scenes between the boys and their foster mother (except for one embarrassingly bad Thanksgiving dinner fantasy sequence that looks as if it were conceived by a first-year film student), we are forced to take their relationship totally on faith, rendering the boys' thirst for revenge arbitrary at worst and academic at best.

The acting is uniformly flat, with the characters little more than wafer-thin stereotypes, and even the action scenes come across as surprisingly mundane and second-rate given the Singleton pedigree in this area.  The boys' running around from venue to venue in their Detroit neighborhood, brandishing guns in full view of the populace and screaming for information about their mother's killer, is ludicrous on the face of it and often reduces the film to the level of cheap low comedy burlesque.

With nary a single moment that rings believable or true, "Four Brothers" is by-the-book filmmaking from a director who has proven that he has the wherewithal and talent to do so much more.


not impressed
	I do not understand what the hype about this dvd is. I baught it according to [ ] reviews, but unfortunatly, was very dissapointed. I def felt a burn in my upper abs, but you are laying on your back THE ENTIRE TIME. There is no changing positions and targeting the abs from diferent angles. To me, it was basically crunch after crunch after crunch. Would not recommend it unless you want buldge in your upper abs


Anti - American
	While I've been a big fan of Ghost In The Shell, these stories are the worst yet. (I've watched the first three episodes on Cartoon Network as the DVD is not out yet).

In "Make Up", the story is flawed in that Paz would have never been allowed to roam "free" while an exact copy cat of himself is on the lose killing people.

In "Poker Face" the "Emperial" America is such and Anti-American statement especially when the Amercian UN Forces have the American flag sewed on their uniforms backwards! This may have been an error but I doubt it.

In PAT. the tachikoma's voices are so annoying and so much information is thrown at you that it's hard to follow. Most if is a rehash on previous episodes. With their childest voices, they shouldn't be used as a main plot of the story


Very disappointed and frustrated
	Personally, I found this workout extremely difficult to follow; the moves are simply not broken down enough to be understood. After pushing myself to go back to every part I didn't understand, I grew frustrated. Other reviews have mentioned that being able to pick up the moves comes from such repetition,  as I have obviously tried, but that technique killed my motivation and the thrill, both of which I believe are integral to any workout. And in my opinion any workout that one pays for should deliver a deserving output; one shouldn't have to teach themselves the moves.

To a less significant degree, I agree with the reviews that comment on the "cheesiness" of the video. At first, such cheesiness made me laugh, and then as I grew frustrated, it merely made me further annoyed. What I feel also adds to the cheesiness is instructor Marie Forleo's unsuccessful motivation attempts, which are not only redundant, but suggestive in a most unnecessary way.

I don't mean to sound so aggressively negative--I just wish I had been able to learn the moves, because they did look like fun


BORING Showtime movie
	Thought it would be insightful but it was just dull and low-budget.


A one hour idea stretched to almost three hours
	I found this movie to be almost unwatchable.  If your idea of a good time is watching Henry Gibson trying to sing while the camera takes long pans over dull crowd scenes, then this movie is for you.  The three minutes of excitement near the end barely has anything to do with anything that preceeded it.  Altman can pull off such greats as "Mash" and  "Godsford Park" and then stink up the joint with this.  What's up with that


one of the worsts!
	the movie title itself says a lot, the movie itself is a total scam, fools people to rent or to watch it. a horrible directing, script and performance. you'd better jump off empire state building in the late afternoon if you feel bored than watching this brain-dean bad movie


For Completists Only
	Strengths: Soundtrack by Christopher Franke, performance by Andreas Katsulas in 1st half. Interesting idea of weapons system.

Weaknesses: Plot was mostly stupid. Tragic underutilization of G'Kar as a character in the second half. Unconvincing sense of scale for the Leanndra (Why call for "a healer"? How many healers are on board this tiny ship?). Felt more like a pilot for a new series than a standalone movie


Not too good for kids
	Denise Austin needs to stick with making exercise videos for adults. This video isn't kid friendly, and doesn't have a good feel for kids. To be honest, it is very close to most of Denise's exercise videos for adults. What Denise has forgotten, or may have never known, is kids are kids, and they need to be treated accordingly, and that means with exercise videos to.
A good choice for kids is - Kick to Get Fit Jr. -For Kids, this video is done by a qualified kid's fitness professional, not someone who is just throwing adult type movements at kids, and just hoping they can do them.
My kids are NOT at all happy with this program.  There are 6   10 years old, and they were bored   turned off by this video within the first 5 minutes, mostly because they didn't understand the movements, and then found most of the other movements very hard to do. Once again, the forgotten point - Kids are kids, and they need to be treated accordingly. One last point, in the video Denise mentions that she received information from a variety of different professionals in the field of children's exercise   fitness. This is all good except they all forgot one VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL,-  You MUST be able to teach   instruct children at a level they understand. Just because you know something about exercise, it doesn't mean you are able to teach it to children. Knowledge is one thing - Teaching   Instructing is another, and the fact is, some people are just not very good at instructing children. A point that is very clearly displayed within this program.


Utter nonsense
	Sixth Sense   Unbreakable are so much better than Signs, and I'm sorry to say whatever M. Night Shyamalan originally had, he's lost. When Sixth Sense came out, he was tipped as the next big thing, but I'm sorry to say, it's no longer there. In my mind, he cannot match any films up to the success and sheer uniqueness of Sixth Sense.

Signs just fails miserably. The concept was a good idea, but the execution was terrible. It reminded me very much of Blair Witch Project, as in what little action there was happens off screen, and the torches as well. It's also definitely not Mel Gibson's best film. Even the actors appear to struggle with the dialogue-heavy script, and not really much happens. Apart from one brief glimpse of an alien. Oooh. Fascinating.

The problem I think that Signs has, is that it's already following many other, far superior, alien movies. Aliens attacking the earth has been done, and lots more memorable than this. There's also the overly religious theme, which the film probably would have done better either toning down, or scrapping altogether. It was really just thrown in to try and justify what was happening in the film. The scenes between Gibson and his kids and his brother are way too sentimental and really cringeworthy.

The finale doesn't really make the film better. The discovery that the naked aliens find water like acid to their skin is atrocious! Why come to earth, the surface of is mostly covered in water, and the atmosphere is full of water droplets and vapour?! And then they travel millions of light years with far advanced technology - and then can't break into a wooden house?! Are you kidding me? But the most ridiculous thing is not only do the characters not pay attention to the dogs, who sensed something was not right (time to get myself a dog), but the fact that all the sophisticated radar equipment cannot detect the aliens entering our atmosphere - but a BABY MONITOR can?! Huh?!

A film to stay well away from. Thankfully, I didn't spend my hard earned (ha!) money on it, but borrowed it from a friend. I shall approach M. Night Shyamalan's films with trepidation from now. Oh, and when a director decides to give himself a speaking role in his own film, make it a SHORT one


A really unfunny comedy
	I saw this movie in the theater and was amazed at how quiet it was in there! Since I was bored, I found myself looking at other people there to see if I could get a read on what they were thinking, and after it was over I asked my friend what he thought. He said, "Oh, it was okay" but didn't elaborate. So let me: it was painfully unfunny, with jokes or punchlines that fell flat, horrible acting, totally predictable, and very forgetable. This is a movie you might want to rent ONLY if you're really bored and nearly every other movie is out. And even then, you'd be better off to go home empty handed. There's not even much eye candy to recommend, which is a nice fallback if there's nothing else going for it. How people could give this movie anything more than 1 star is puzzling. Just because you like a movie shouldn't mean you give it 5 stars, especially when it's as bad as this one. I mean, I liked Freddy VS Jason, but there's no way I'd give that movie 4 or 5 stars. This is bottom of the barrel


What passes for science these days is sad
	As an environmental scientist, I find these soft-science/hardball political presentations of the global warming discussion distressing and unhelpful. While they rally the convinced, having partisan political types at the forefront of the discussion is probably unhelpful. To wit, about a third of this movie turns out to be a self promotion video complete with a replay of 2000 election footage.

About the "movie": it's actually a filmation of the presentation Al Gore has made for some time on Global Warming. In it he tries to make the case that nearly everything we are measuring on this dynamic earth is the result of man-made CO2 and other green-house gasses. The audience is bombarded with a long series of charts, graphs, and suppositions that make for a compelling argument - IF one has little or no knowledge coming into the presentation.

And this is where this production goes terribly wrong, the fact checking was terrible, the cherry-picked data was obvious and heavy-handed, and finally the movie ends up serving those who oppose any discussion of global warming more than it helps the cause. Two examples:

An Inconvenient Truth asserts that a sea-level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect - yet, the 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations warns of sea-level rise in the four to 35 inches range in the 21st century.

Gore discusses the Earth's atmosphere as relatively thin, and declares that, "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide." Hello? Thickness has nothing to do with global warming people. Carbon dioxide has molecular bonds that vibrate on the same wavelengths at which infrared energy radiates upward from Earth's surface - meaning that the vibration warms the CO2, which makes things hotter. Further the references to nitrogen are pure nonsense, since it doesn't play a role.

My warning is to not let the politicians ruin the scientific process, no matter how noble the cause may be.


Ridiculous
	Dull, dull, dull.
If I could have submitted a review and given ZERO stars I would have.
Pointless


Its ok but is too random
	(It is really random the selection they used as you hardly have a great cage match in every choice and for the millionth time that WWE lies to us, Snuka-Backlund was NOT 1980! It was June 28, 1982! The date they claim from 1980 was Backlund-Patera in a Texas Death Match. A company with that much money has no excuse for such a continous screw up! Snuka was not working for Vince Sr in 1980, he was in the NWA feuding with Ric Flair as part of Gene Anderson's stable!)

Disc 1

Chapters:

    * Bob Backlund vs. Pat Patterson
    * Bruno Sammartino and Larry Zbyszko feud
    * Bob Backlund vs. Jimmy Snuka
    * Don Muraco vs. Jimmy Snuka
    * Tully Blanchard vs. Magnum TA
    * Hulk Hogan vs. Paul Orndorff
    * Ric Flair vs. Ronnie Garvin
    * Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart
    * Isaac Yankem vs. Bret Hart
    * Triple H vs. Mankind
    * Triple H vs. The Rock
    * Steve Austin vs. Vince McMahon
    * WWF World tag team champions Edge   Christian vs. Hardy Boyz
    * Kurt Angle vs. Chris Benoit
    * Edge vs. Kurt Angle

DVD Extras:

    * WWF World champion Bob Backlund vs. Pat Patterson (clipped, 12:55 aired, 9/24/79)
    * Bruno Sammartino vs. Ivan Koloff (9:02, 12/15/75)
    * WWF Intercontinental champion Don Muraco vs. Jimmy Snuka (6:40, 10/17/83)
    * WWF World champion Bob Backlund vs. Stan Hansen (8:44, 4/6/81)

Disc 2

Over 3.5 hours of bonus material!

    * NWA U.S. champion Tully Blanchard vs. Magnum TA in an "I Quit" cage match (Magnum wins title, from Starrcade, 14:41, 11/28/85) *****
    * NWA World champion Ric Flair vs. Dusty Rhodes (Rhodes wins title,from Great American Bash, 21:01, 7/26/86)
    * NWA World tag team champions the Rock 'n' Roll Express vs. Ole   Arn Anderson (from Starrcade, 11:23, 11/27/86)
    * WWF World champion Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart (from SummerSlam, 32:17, 8/29/94) *****
    * Triple H vs. Mankind (from SummerSlam, 16:25, 8/3/97)
    * WWF Intercontinental champion Shawn Michaels vs. Marty Jannetty (13:12, 1993)
    * Edge vs. Kurt Angle (from Smackdown, 14:41, 5/30/02) ****1/4

Easter Eggs (hidden features):

    * Disc 1: Ending of the Ronnie Garvin NWA World title win over Ric Flair. Access it by going to the Chapters menu, scrolling down to the Flair vs. Garvin match, click right twice. You will see the final 3 minutes of Garvin's win. (9/25/87)
    * Disc 2: See a special interview by Owen Hart prior to his match with Bret Hart. The interview takes place in an empty arena in anempty cage.Access it by going to the Extras menu, scrolling down to the Hart vs. Hart match, click right twice.

Information:

    * Encoding: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada)
    * Playstation 2 Compatibl


More of the same . . .
	Being a fan of Cesar, I expected something new and informative.

This DVD is nothing more than a bunch of selected episodes from his series.  So, if you already have his episodes on DVD, don't buy this, unless you want the aggression-specific episodes on one disk


Pretty forgotten by now.
	The Forgotten starring Julianne Moore and Domnic West is a slow, tepid, and hard to grasp film. The previews for this film were better than the actual movie, I guess that's a bad sign that the movie isn't going to be great (I'll try and remember that next time). The only reason I am giving The Fogotten 2 stars is the scene with Alfe Woodward, you'll know what I mean when it happens, the scence is scary and comes out of nowhere, very intrguing spurprise awaits. Anyways The Forgotten is a movie you should see once and that's it, happy viewing


let's make this short and sweet...
	This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen.  I knew from the very beginning of the movie that there was no way I was going to be able to stay awake through the whole thing.  I was right; I fell asleep about fifteen minutes into it.  Recently, I was offered the chance to watch it again.  I thought, "OK, I didn't see the whole thing, it might have gotten better, so I'll give it another chance." ... Bad mistake.  This little tale about a horse race across a vast desert did nothing to hold my interest for very long.  Hidalgo is the name of the horse.  So what?  That's about as boring as this movie.  So why the 1-star markup? Cause the main character is played by Viggo Mortensen, of Aragorn fame in the smash movie series The Lord of the Rings- and I do like Viggo.  I did not, however, like this movie.  It's kind of fitting it should be set in a desert- cause that's exactly where this movie should be buried, never to bore another wave of audiences again.  If you find yourself overworked and in need of a nice long nap, watch Hidalgo; you'll be out in no time


Not Happy
	I have a 2 year old and have seen him on all the Kids Channels.  I was hoping the DVD would show each of his songs as they are performed on TV.  Instead it was like a concert and did not keep my attention nor my sons.  This would have been a better CD instead of a DV