Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

I loved it, plain and simple! Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, the two hottest actors around, how can you go wrong? And Kate Beckinsale is absolutely gorgeous. The acting was first class, the story sweet, well except for the whole blowing up thing, and the special effects were gargantuous! I'm so glad that they have found someone almost as talented as Harrison Ford to play Jack Ryan in his next movie. I know Ben Affleck will do a great job! 10 outta 10 for this one!

British cinema prides itself on being different from Hollywood, as well it should be. This is a cute little partly-comedic historical drama. Judi Dench is wonderful in this film, and a lot of credit should go to Bob Hoskins, as well. I first saw him in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and he had the accent down so perfectly, I just assumed that he was an American. Both of these fine actors subsumed themselves completely into their characters and made the semi-farcical believable. The photography was also quite grand, particularly the rooftop shots of London during the Blitz. The nudity was tastefully done, maybe even a bit too much. Overall, this film is most assuredly worth a rental.

Dexter falls into the category of a great show, with a great plot, with a great cast. It is one of these dramas that crops up every couple of years, such as The Sopranos, Prison Break and stretching it to Lost.Dexter is a blood specialist, but he is so much more than that. Dexter hides his real persona, his dark side and only one person has ever known his true identity, his father harry.Dexter looks badly upon those who have committed murder but gotten away with their crimes, in his mind they must be punished, in the only way Dexter knows: revenge.Hard to say anymore without giving away any spoilers so i will give you 2 words of advice to help you.WATCH THIS

As someone who is not very familiar with the legendary music of Johnny Cash, and not a huge fan of Joaquin Phoenix(largely due to how well he portrayed his character in Gladiator: he was so good, I hated his character, though I didn't really feel him in Signs], I was immensely impressed with the film, it's contents and the exquisite performances given by Witherspoon and Pheonix. If you are by any means a fan of Johnny cash you owe it to yourself to stop what you are doing, and go get tickets for this film right now! I am not a country music fan, but I was grooving' with the music in the film, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I felt the movie didn't drag, but nicely and aptly explained the torment Cash experienced in the beginning of his career. I really cannot say enough about how good this movie is, and how much I urge you to see this brilliant piece of cinema. The only 1 thing I can say bad about this film, is that I wanted it to be longer! I highly recommend this, (can't you tell?) to anyone who likes great films. Even if you know nothing about Johnny Cash, but you appreciate excellent movies, you seriously need to see this Oscar worthy picture.

This movie has everything, and is a sheer delight to watch, for all ages. Whenever I'm feeling down, this is one of those movies that is guaranteed to pick me up.Action, comedy, romance, adventure all twine together with a charming story that will soften the heart of anyone who watches it.This is one of the few movies I personally believe has something for everyone.The casting is spot on, and even the villains are likable, if despicable.Unrivalled classic. Nothing comes close. This is one movie EVERY needs to see at least once in their life time.

Oh my God !!! What can I really say about this terrible film Just for the record I have seen the original many times and this remake well please read on...... This apart from the obvious Necronomicon link and the fast camera through the 'eerie woods' scenes could have actually being any low budget horror romp for a Friday night. Even the 'undead face appearing from under the basement' scene was less scary than the original. This is a total waste of time even on a weekday night with a few beers you'll find yourself ignoring the film and having a chat with your mam on the phone instead (sometimes far scarier!) There are so many remakes which do not make the grade this is one of them. Read one review said that the original was to cheesy well sorry 14 yo you should be in bed for ten at the latest anyway. Poor film, poor actors (high school jocks and nerd stoner with long hair..beards, some girls boring boring boring) Watch the original have a laugh with some beers and some girls and enjoy the scary bits. Or watch remakes of Hills have Eyes far superior. This is just my opinion...make your own minds up !

I saw this movie on DVD, the start of the movie is a bit interesting (flashback N all), but then the movie gets senseless, there is nothing much in the movie to offer, action is kinda OK, but rest of the part is very boring. But thanks, the movie is very small and ends very soon. The FBI hacking scenes are so funny, its kinda playing Winamp viz plug-in, that too with trance music on... I could not stop laughing seeing those scenes, and I never ever understood why John Travolta was doing all he did in the movie or Halle's character... very confusing and boring...As I have said in the subject, the only good part is Halle's Boobz, and she is looking great with this hair style.I say, U wont regret missing this one, N for Halle's boobz, get it from Kaaza or something. ;)

This Hitchcock film was the first he made in Hollywood and he thought it was a compromise because he did not have complete control. Don't let that fool you. This is a classic film by perhaps the best director in history and it offers a view of Gothic horror and/or mystery you won't soon forget."Rebecca" is nearly 70 years old and yet it still projects a surreal world that draws the viewer into its web. Laurence Olivier is convincing as the brooding Maxim de Winter--a man unable to forget his first wife, Rebecca, who died a mysterious death. That presents a big problem for Joan Fontaine as the second Mrs. de Winter. She is a young and fragile newlywed who finds herself in a dark and confusing situation. She cannot fathom Maxim's many mood changes and his cold demeanor and she feels everyone is comparing her to the first Mrs. de Winter.This begs the question why did she marry him in the first place? Was she blinded by his scholarly manners or his offer of a comfortable life? Whatever he presented in courtship changed as soon as he returned to Manderley. He never seemed to grasp the fact that she felt out of place and was confused as to her role as lady of the manor.Some argue that Fontaine was too weak in the role, but I could not find a false note in any of her scenes. She started out as a mousy girl in love who was dependent on a strange, distant husband for everything. But, she fought her way to the truth about the first Mrs. de Winter and became a strong woman at the end of the film.Character actors, a Hitchcock staple, are a big plus in "Rebecca" as Dame Judith Anderson, Nigel Bruce, Gladys Cooper and George Sanders bolster the film. Anderson is amazing as Mrs. Danvers, the manor's housekeeper, whose presence seems to cast a cold and foreboding pall over everything. Her formal manner also has de Winter's new bride completely mesmerized and the give and take between the two actresses becomes a battle of sorts. Maxim seems unaware of the tension between the two and he seemingly has no fear of Mrs. Danvers even though she is so much a part of his tragic past.Although unspoken throughout, Hitchcock resurrects the memory of Rebecca as a tool to haunt all aspects of this film. From beginning to end, there is the strange feeling that she is still alive somehow and has returned to Manderley to claim her rightful place.In 1940, Hitchcock could well have used color for this film, but black and white proved to be an excellent choice. The dark shadows and fog just make the mansion that much more eerie and that includes the billowy curtains, which take on a life of their own when the wind blows.This film was Hitchcock's first "modern" picture, seemingly eons away from his small British movies of the 1930s. It is a Hollywood studio film (in the best sense) and David Selznick's production skills are evident as the "look" of the movie is very good even by today's standards. Even if the director felt this was not his best effort, many critics think this is Hitchcock's first classic film in a long line of them.

Salma gets to showcase her acting chops finally and does a great job... what she has not been allowed to do on screen before. Hopefully directors and producers will take note.....and Mexico finally gets to shine too. It's rare that you see Mexico and Mexicans portrayed as artists, intellectuals and even trend setters...Who knew? no gangbangers, drug dealers or cheapo stereotypes, no turisty Mexico...the real thing...even the music is great and authentically "latin"...the vision and artist's perspective is worth it alone

Although I grew up with TNG and watched Encounter at Farpoint when I was five years old and was hooked, I had found the original cast to translate into movies much better. Although the movies were generally excellent with the exception of V which was more like a parody of Star Trek, this movie was absolutely superb in every aspect. The music gives a sense of intense suspense and foreboding. I mean, this is one of the greatest scores in a sci if next to Star Wars. The emotion of first seeing the signatures of the original cast in the credits is etched into my memory. I see no weak point in this movie. Its script is strong the acting is superb, the story and plot are coherent. Everyone in the case is playing themselves and the three main characters: Kirk, McCoy and Spock are highly reflective on themselves and where they have come. Being set against the end of the cold war makes this movie utterly powerful. General Chang is an excellent villain. Not just the stereotypical dumb and angry Klingon, he is cunning and intelligent, quoting Shakespeare through his scenes. Spock's successor did not turn out to be just a female Spock and that was an interesting twist.The only gripe I have is that they were able to make this torpedo to follow the gas of the bird of prey at the end. Well, why don't they always do that if it was so effective? It should have traced the neutron energy surge or something particular to that prototype. But just a detail.I cannot believe that this movie only has a 7.2. Maybe people didn't want such a dark send off to the original cast?

Rodriguez's portion of Grindhouse is much bloodier and far more geared toward the horror genre fans than Tarantino's' Deathproof. I love the campy feel of Planet Terror. Some of the gore may be a little too distasteful for many. The fog, the flickers of the film stock...this one's definitely true to what they were going for... I thought Michael Beihn and Jeff Fahey's role's were a nice addition. While I loved the creepy air to this film, and the 'look' of this film,..it lacks much of the cohesiveness of 'Deathproof'. It may have been a bit too brisk with it's 87 min running time. I'm one of those wondering how this is rated higher than Tarantino's superior half of Grindhouse. Both films stand alone....but I can see how this tense, campy, horror flick out-shined it's more intricate follow-up. Planet Terror is a distasteful, creepy, in-your-face thriller straight out of the late 70's....Re-Animator Meets From Dusk Till Dawn... (EDIT)after a second vieweing this film has seriously grown on me....it's much funnier the second time around.....and now I 'get it' so to speak....I'm rating this the same as Deathproof at 8...but I still think QT's is a hair better. Watch the DVD with the 'audience' track(special features)....it adds to the experience. 84/100

James Cameron does not do small films, even his breakout film The Terminator was hitting way above its budget. This is down to Cameron himself and his extreme work ethic to get the money right up there on the screen. This film often gets poor reviews from people, mainly due to its immense commercial success. However this success is truly deserving. There is no other film maker out there who can produce a film on this kind of scale and still pull it off. I was lucky enough to see it at the cinema in 1997. Straight off to even consider diving to the Titanic wreck itself to film it for the movie would be considered insane, Cameron did it 12 times. The film was pitched as Romeo and Juliet on Titanic and Cameron immediately got funded. The film ran massively over budget and there was huge concern at the time that the whole project would implode. However Cameron knew he was onto something special, creating a stunning replica of the Titanic itself, along with exact decor and furniture, props, clothing, even tableware. Cameron cast Romeo himself from the 1996 film Romeo and Juliet, Leonardo Di Caprio. This was a masterstroke as Di Caprio was gaining unrivalled stardom after the 1996 film. Kate Winslet is fantastic as Rose, as a young actress to have that level of scale all resting on your performance to make it all come to life, she pulled it off amazingly and often does not get the credit she deserves. The real star of the show though is the ship itself and its master film director James Cameron. When the ship starts sinking and Cameron moves into his action mode, there is no-one better in the world at pacing action them Cameron, he is a master of suspense at the exact right moments. He is an exceptional story teller and fully deserved all the accolades he has acquired. I highly recommend Titanic and encourage you to watch it on the largest screen possible, films like this do not come along often. The 3d Blu ray is also exceptional and shows what can be done when a 2d film is converted in the right hands into 3d.

Although for those who know the works of Alfred Hitchcock it might not be much of a surprise to learn that he was fascinated by sex and horror, but even for us who do know even that he himself often formed complicating relationships with the actresses on the stage, yes even some of will find Eva Marie Saints role of Eve Kendall as more than a tad forward. Actually suggesting a sexual relation in her first sentences to our hero, played by Cary Grant. In the year of 1959 I am certain that this was not something one did every now and then, as it is not even yet practised in our own time. But that is merely a flaw, one of a few albeit quite noticeable ones in this terrific film. These flaws do in no way make this picture less of an experience for the suspense aficionado.

They called him Legend. Well before he had completed his fourth tour in Iraq or broken the record for confirmed kills, Chris Kyle's fellow soldiers regarded him as a hero, an almost superhuman figure. People joked that he was invincible, that he could win any fight, and some of them were only half joking. But of course he was not. He was not invincible, nor was he immune to the effects of the war raging around him. He was a warrior, but he was still a man. And Clint Eastwood's American Sniper is the story of the man behind the legend.Given the things he did, the most extraordinary thing about the man at the center of this story is how ordinary he is. Chris Kyle started out as just a small town Texas ranch hand, dreaming of becoming a rodeo cowboy till he saw our embassies burning on TV. Even after becoming a SEAL, he doesn't carry himself with the same bravado one would expect. In fact he's not the type to be particularly talkative about anything, remaining shy and soft spoken in social situations. His romantic advances towards his girlfriend-turned-wife are almost endearingly cheesy, making up with earnestness what he lacks in romantic sophistication. He's really just a down to earth American good old boy- who happens to be a model soldier and phenomenal with a gun.Bradley Cooper absolutely nails this role in a performance defined by understatement. He blends so seamlessly into the role that you almost forget that he's an actor playing a character. He's able to say so much with so few words, his tone saying as much as the words themselves and his expressions saying the things his character cannot speak out loud. We sense his anger, frustration, exhilaration and at times even fear without the need for drawn out exposition. If you blink you may miss it, but Cooper and Eastwood have perfected the less is more school of characterization.Under Eastwood's direction, the scenes in this film come mostly in two flavors: tense and intense. The intensity comes with the firefights spread throughout the movie. These are expertly shot, suspenseful, as realistic as Hollywood can produce, and always important to the story. None of the action is gratuitous or included for its own sake, and what actually happened takes precedence over what would be the most fun or exciting, or the least disturbing. And in between the action the tension is always there, slowly building, because he can't know when the next firefight will be. Anytime on patrol someone close to him could be hit by an enemy sniper's bullet without warning. Even when he's home, he really isn't. The tension is still there and his mind is still in the war. He can't relax, can't relate to anyone in civilian life. And so again and again he goes back to the fighting. There's talk of glory and at what point it ceases to have value, but that's not why he's fighting Neither, as he claims, is he fighting to protect his wife and children. They're safe half a world away. No, he keeps fighting because he feels obligated to his brothers. He knows that every minute he's home there's still a war going on, and he's scared to death that good people will die if he's not there to protect them.And on another level it's very personal for him. He can't come back from the war, really come back, because he has too much unfinished business. There are friends to avenge, targets left over from his last tour. Targets like Mustafa. Kyle hears of him early on his first tour; an especially deadly Al-Oueda sniper rumored to have been an Olympian. Soon he sees firsthand just how much substance the rumors have in the first of many, many encounters. Across all four tours they meet again and again, seeing each other only through their scopes, coming so close to killing the other. It's like Mustafa is the white whale to his captain Ahab. Kyle simply can't rest knowing he's still out there.But every war must end, every warrior must come home, and at long last he does. Finally he reaches the point where the strain is too much and combat no longer holds any lure, and so he leaves the war for good. Leaving it behind him however is not so easy. Readjusting is as hard as anything he's done. Admitting to himself, much less others that everything isn't "fine" is almost impossible. But he does. In helping others who are like himself he finds his peace, some would even say redemption. And it is this, more than anything he did in Iraq that the film treats as his greatest triumph.And that is also the greatest tragedy. It was after he had come home, not only physically but mentally; when he had truly become Chris Kyle, father and husband, and begun living what should have been his happily ever after, that he died. Everyone watching already knows how the story ends, but that doesn't make it any less painful when it does. Handled in the same direct, understated manner as the rest of the film, his funeral procession makes for one of the most poignant and melancholy endings in recent memory.American Sniper is not a perfect film. It's not quite a Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty. The establishing flashbacks at the beginning come too quickly, and some later parts go too slow. Nor do any of his fellow soldiers make more than a fleeting impression. But that is understandable, because this is Kyle's story, and it is a very good one. Well shot and directed, exceptionally acted, and subtle in its depth, American Sniper is a good war movie and an excellent biography. In a winter with many excellent films in theaters, this is one of the best.

You will not get anything better out of this series. I know lots of people are betting on higher budgets to bring this amazing one of a kind story back to life but it wont work. If you are looking for something unique as well as an adventure you have found it right here. I have been on this earth for only twenty three years and in those years I have not heard a negative comment on this movie. For the time it was made it is a masterpiece and when it comes to the writing and pacing of the story I would put it against a lot of different movies that are out now. Give it a watch and I promise you will not be let down. Jurassic Park (1993) gets a 10/10 for me and that is a hard rating to come by.

This was a really disappointing movie, with lots of sound and fury signifying nothing. I know that no one watches this sort of entertainment in search of a meaningful plot, or even intelligent characterisations. However, the most annoying thing about this movie is that the plot recycles the same irritating plot device that I have seen and criticised in numerous other movies. *** spoiler alert *** A rescue worker, supposedly employed to rescue people and save lives, goes off on a private rescue mission, first to find his estranged wife, and this his daughter. But wait, the city is falling into ruins as he is doing this, and it doesn't seem to occur to him to use his helicopter to help anyone else, even on his way.I could mention the ridiculous plot, the coincidences, and the two- dimensional characters. The main character is of course the earthquake, which is well done.

I have always enjoyed Evolution - it is a funny, original and exciting film. Though it did kind of bomb at the cinemas, this film has so much to offer - lots of slime and alien beings exploding, lots of idiotic scientists, several big explosions and a fair bit of science. It may not be a masterpiece, but Evolution has never failed to entertain me and I shall enjoy watching it many times more. Whoever had the idea to fuse an alien invasion with comedy should be proud of themselves - this really is sci-fi/comedy. The funniest scene was when Harry Block had to have a bug removed from his backside - who can honestly say that wasn't the best scene of the whole film? Things stay suitably silly throughout, and it isn't horrifically inappropriate or terrifying either - the kids will also find it amusing. Highly recommended. 9/10

This really is a great film, it's funny and romantic. I think this movie is very interesting, because it kind of shows how technology fits into our lives. It just interests me so much to think that if you could show this to someone back in even the 1950's they wouldn't have a clue what the two characters were doing with this "e-mail".I think all the characters are great, and I just found it to be a very happy and fun movie. There isn't a whole lot I can say about this movie other than I thought it was great, and I hope you like it too. If you like Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, then you're hopefully going to like the movie.Thanks for reading.-NY152

This is a great movie with a ton of great actors the main cast includes George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts. The rest of the cast has a lot of big names too which all pull off their performances very well. The movie is really entertaining accompanied by some terrific writing. The story is original and fun it will keep you entertained until it blows your mind at the end.This movie is about a thief named danny ocean(Clooney) who gets out of prison and right away is anxious to set up a new "job". He recruits 11 of the finest career criminals around and they plan the ultimate never before done robbing of a Las Vegas casino.This movie is really good but it is strange because I have never bothered to watch the sequels mainly for the reason that Im scared its going to be too much like this one. Overall though great acting, great story and a great movie.

In Summary: Appallingly overt product placements. More of a commercial than a movie.Brilliant premise - but let down by lack of any character or plot development.The plot is treated purely as a device for standard action scenes - a bit like the plot in a seventies porn movieWasted the talents of a fine cast. This is down to poor direction, and script.Far too many implausible stunts - even for a Hollywood Summer blockbuster.As thought-provoking as Dumb and Dumberer.

Semi-excellent emulation of a modern romantic comedy at times but still takes huge leaps away from the intuitive joy that makes up the majority of this crowd pleaser. As one of Hollywood's few female mainstream forces, Nancy Meyers immediately reiterates why she is an intelligent enough writer and director to justify many clichés her feel-good material thrives off of. Nothing here is trying to reinvent the wheel, or reinvent the corny, sappy contrived nature of these films for that matter, but Meyers and her acting entourage get enough mileage out of the mediocre script by the sheer amount of warmth emitted from chief cast members. Heck, even the overcooked score still manages to evoke emotion where one would feel manipulation in less apt hands.Unfortunately, the cute and intimate performances that provide this popcorn muncher's adorable heart also serve to backfire on the film's small but significant redeeming qualities of emotional substance. For the most part the surprisingly engaging performances overwhelm a majority of fluff provided throughout the predictable outing, with an appreciated amount of detail paid to so many effective nuances, equal parts comedic and dramatic, during the interlocked romantic stories. The women sure do steal the show here though, I guess they all knew who would be watching it. Kate Winslet continues her emotional dominance, unparalleled even when in cinema's most trite of circumstances. Her attempts at more overt humor may pale in comparison to the heart-sweltering realism her dramatic chops bring to even the dullest of lines, but remains enjoyable enough. Surprisingly, Cameron Diaz gives one of her best performances to date, helping to justify her overrated stature with substantial proof of a masterful caricature, complete with an array of subtlety to boot. It is her powerful chemistry between an appropriate Jude Law that will keep the chicks coming back to this flick, sustaining the somewhat corny affair with an inspired Hollywood love affair.Which brings me to the backfiring part. Unfortunately the movie only works half as effectively as it wanted to due to the terrible casting, or acting of Jack Black. I really admire the guy but he obviously has quite a ways to go before conquering the romantic genre, even if it is comedy-based, in which his character resembles an infinitely dorkier version of himself (the only person Black has really mastered playing). Black shines when he is involved with a project near and dear to his offbeat heart, but here he feels awkwardly out of place, and in a very unintentional way. In effect nearly half of the movie's dramatic heft is severed by his inane take, even worse canceling out some of Winslet's moving work (thank goodness for Rufus Sewell adding some romantic dimension to her story), a character misread that seriously undermined the integrity of this light but tight direction.

I went home on a Friday night and found out my mom had rented the movie enchanted. I had nothing else to do, so I forced myself to watch it. How bad could it be? Really bad. First off, the beginning had a odd felling and was very awkward. When she finally went to NYC, it was still awkward. In fact, most of the entire movie had a musical feeling and was again, awkward. The evil queen that you see in the trailers only shows up at the very end of the movie. She makes her eat a poison apple, a BIG cliché, and, what do you know, she falls to sleep. You find out that the prince isn't her true love, and Disney tries to pull off an action sequence. Not a good idea. then the movie abruptly ends. Not nearly as good as you would expect. Please avoid at all costs and circumstances!

Just watched it. Very good. Speaking of Travis being a loner, he didn't speak much during the entire movie. But when he talked, he was quite alright. The thing uneasy about him was that he carried a toady smile in his face when talking to strangers, e.g. to the body guard/FBI of the Senator. That was probably from long time isolation. He was a veteran, but of course the movie says nothing directly about the war he experienced, whether it caused his mental unstableness etc. In fact, he was only 26 when retired from the war. Still too young to be a bitter person right away. Well, he was kind of bitter, when talking to the girl he was wooing at about her male coworker, and to the child prostitute about the gangster. He talked mean about man when was with a girl he liked. He talked mean about them when he didn't know them. Of course, I am not saying the gangster was any good. On the contrary, the producer of the movie was not making any judgment during the entire show. He didn't judge whatever Travis was doing right or wrong, nor what the Senator was doing, nor the prostitute, nor her parents. I don't know which side the Senator was on. In fact, that politician was only a small chess piece in this guy's emotional world. He would wish him success or planning to assassinate him only because of his tension with the girl he was wooing at. In fact, the movie says he was not listening to the politician, and did not mention whether the politician was listening to him or not. (a different way to say no to politician in the 70s than "Forrest Gump" would, milder, but same ironic.)The only 'cool' moments of Travis was when he was purchasing guns. (Nobody cares about you when you are not purchasing, huh?) Other time he seemed to be going downwards. He wasn't even very handsome when he used the guns. (Sure. Like in Kurosawa's movies, Samurai were always awkward and nervous when using a sword.) When Travis got angry at society and wanted to do some --, he chose two things: going up to assassinate the Senator, and going down to help a child prostitute. Quite unsurprised, he wasn't successful when trying the 'up' way, but he did get a hell of mess going the 'down' way. And sarcastically enough, he became a city hero in the newspaper. Well, I thought he would just end up dead in the battle, or didn't die but saw the prostitute showing up again. But that didn't happen, or in the later case was not told. He got a visit from the girl who rejected seeing him long ago. She stared at him in an amazed and perplexed look. Arranging that girl to show up again actually make Travis kind of comforted, but he was afraid to appear pathetic. He didn't talk much and ran off, quite typical. In the end there was just the green and red flashing lights of New York. Quite often when people get a cut in emotional life, from love, war or social harshness, they couldn't cure it themselves, and nobody else could attend to them either. There were always something that happened in our lives and we didn't know how to deal with it, called the 'unattended', which I thought was the theme of this movie. When Travis wasn't emotionally living in a healthy way, he didn't actually know that. He was just trying to run away from it. I wish in many years later he wouldn't look back and think of the girl, or the prostitute, just like he shouldn't look at the dirty night of New York city.

Hi this is my first comment just my reactions . pls don't overreact :)I like this movie much than Part 2 but part 1 has a special place alwayspeople don like i bcoz of the way Mike is subdued but what else can we expect from himHe is actually not brutal but became one to protect his family The only one thing that i din like was him killing fredo in Part 2 . so it was natural that he repents for it in his old age . He lost his family he had longed for coz of his ruthlessness though it was understandable . Compare the way he and his father diedVito playing with his grandchild Mike lonelyThts what the directors wanted to drive home Vito and mike were the best but Vito was reasonable and patient than mike which was greatly emphasized in part two (also the vito was more patient with tom hagen)Also the way they both react to deaths . Mike wasn't affected till his daughters death the most important scene where his sis Connie and wife Kay watch mike with astonishment .Another point is people make is Vincent reacts poorly to mikes daughter He never actually loved her . He gave her up for Becoming DON which is obvious . and its fitting that he is sonny's son bcoz i missed sonny in part 2 .

Clearly not everyones cup of tea given that its rating has slipped below 7 but I don't care because I loved this film. It's a clever, beautifully acted story of redemption in which Ryan Phillipe and Reese Witherspoon especially play their roles with aplomb. Phillipe clearly enjoys the role and plays a very good is he/isn't he sincere style in which you're never really sure if he's truly falling in love with Witherspoon's character or just toying with her. On the whole it's well thought out although the 'coincidental' nature of the film ruins it somewhat. The idea that everything could fall into place so easily at the beginning stretches credibility, although it never breaks it. What you have to realise is that it's not a successor to Dangerous Liaisons and so shouldn't be compared to it. It merely takes the base idea of two manipulative people and twists it wonderfully to suit it's new surroundings. Sarah Michelle Gellar and Phillipe are great as the cunning siblings, Witherspoon is a delight as the not-so-naive object of their attention and Selma Blair is quite good, but just a touch annoying, as the humourous and docile Cecile. I think Roger Kumble did a great job with this film and I look forward to the day when I can own a copy of my very own. Hurrah.

Missed this in theatres-and I'm relieved I didn't go. I kept waiting for the humans to propel the story from the establishment of the apes' story at the beginning. It can be hard to relate to motion-captured 'acting' as there is a residual unrealness to the apes' closeups revealing realistic but not actual eyes. Still they really tried hard in that regard, just not always a bullseye.It was the lack of the three leads being able to reveal their underlying emotions as not enough time was spent on them. For instance, when John Lithgow dies, the scene was a throw-away one with a brief shot of Franco and Pinto dressed to suggest a funeral. Their glance at Lithgow's book didn't allow them time to have a few lines revealing their characters' thoughts, leaving the audience to get an emotional tie only to the apes - a missed opportunity at something deeper. The leads are capable of much more than was offered them; I wish the two producer/writers and director had noticed that in the rough cut.Also, the film is devoid of any humor; just some quick references to past films' dialogue.With too much reliance on special effects and lack of human motivation in response to the apes' 'rise,' and the actual finale taking place after the producer and director credits, when a paying audience usually is exiting the theatre, an unsatisfying feeling to the whole production becomes dominant.

An exhilarating drama about an aspiring young jazz drummer who is pushed up to and over the edge by a sadistic college professor in order to reach his potential. What at first appears to be a standard story of a talented but difficult pupil being taken under the wing of an uncompromising and unconventional mentor soon moves into darker territory.J.K. Simmons is brutal as Fletcher, the band leader who terrorises his students to breaking point in order to achieve perfection. The physical and verbal abuse he dishes out is shocking and it's hard not to feel anxious for the the young musicians as they perform under unbearable pressure.Miles Teller plays the talented student Andrew Neiman, who initially comes across as an awkward and endearing loner but soon displays his own antisocial behaviours. Although some of the treatment he receives is hard to watch at times, the fact he is not a wholly sympathetic character makes it difficult to completely empathise with him and condemn Fletcher.The performances of the two main actors are excellent and as the film progresses a psychological battle develops as Fletcher's intense ambition to discover genius by essentially shattering and manipulating his students resolve clashes with Andrew's determination to prove his talent at all costs.This comes to a crescendo in the thrilling finale as the two main characters make their final moves, in a theatre packed with powerful music industry figures, to discover if Andrew really does have what it takes to become a jazz great.

I'm about 8 years late, but I've wanted to say this ever since I saw Kung Fu Panda. I actually never had the desire to see this movie. I recall seeing a trailer some time in 2007, probably with Shrek 3, but I'm not sure. I just thought that it was too childish for my tastes. Then, the summer rolled around, and my brother dragged my mom and me to the movies to see this. Honestly, I spent about 10-15 minutes trying to figure out why a panda had a goose for a father before I just settled on adoption. After that, I basically just dwelt on the humorless jokes and how irritating I found Po. He was a man-child who did and said the most foolish things. I couldn't keep myself from rolling my eyes.Upon Po being chosen as the Dragon Warrior, I began to pity him. I mean, I was thinking that there was no way a panda could learn kung fu AND defeat the bad guy. But I thought that his treatment by the Five and Shifu was unnecessary and harsh. Plus, I thought it was upsetting that he possessed such a poor self-image. As annoying as I found him, I never thought he was a "disgrace" or some "thing" or anything else the others believed him to be. He just had a dream, albeit a seemingly unrealistic one, that he now had the opportunity to pursue.Fast forward to his training with Shifu. I actually thought his combat scene before the keep-away thing with the dumpling was another dream and was shocked when I learned it was real. But I still thought that he couldn't beat Tai Lung.At the end when Mr. Ping told Po his secret ingredient for the soup, I actually began to like this movie. I give it a 6 because, in spite of those poor attempts at humor, I saw something valuable. In spite of the incredulity expressed by the others, Po remained determined and managed to beat the odds. I think that scroll managed to dispel that self-loathing we saw earlier. That's a cool message to teach to people of any age and allowed me to appreciate some of what I'd written off earlier.Overall, kids can enjoy the movie, and I know many members of older audiences did, as well. It's worth watching at least once.

Manchester by the Sea is a fantastic movie based on a brilliant script by Kenneth Lonergan. The writing for this film is extremely captivating, unbelievably emotional and heartbreaking, as well as Affleck's character. I was very concerned during the first act because I didn't feel any sort of emotional connection to Lee since all he showed me until then was that he simply hates life and the reasons behind it took a little bit of time to start developing.However, from the moment the past starts to unfold and everything's clearer, I became totally attached to this character because I truly felt for him. It's such a sad and devastating story that it's impossible for someone not to feel bad for him. Casey Affleck has his career-best performance and a more than deserved Oscar. I never thought this would be a good thing, but he's depressed as hell ... Perfect. That's exactly how his character should feel after everything he's been through. It's the best sad performance I've seen in a long time.Michelle Williams (Randi) is also brilliant, but I'm super surprised with Lucas Hedges' portrayal of Patrick. Excellent cast, all of them have Oscar-worthy performances and that's also due to the greatly developed characters that they play, so congrats Kenneth for one of the best scripts of 2016. It's extremely captivating, but not due to what usually scripts tend to go. It's one of those stories that stick with you for some days: it's so powerful. Its extreme sadness and horrible tragic events, plus the depressing performances from the cast, just left me completely floored.However, that's one of my (minor) issues. One problem is the first act's slow pacing that takes its time to develop all of its stories. Still, my main issue has to do with the tone of the movie: it's just too depressing. I know, that's not technically a flaw and you're right, it's not. This is my opinion and the truth is that I will probably never watch this film again because of its extremely high- level of sadness. It shocked me in such a negative way that I simply can't watch again and that's something I always take into consideration when analyzing a movie: do I want to rewatch it? Do I enjoy it so much that I can't wait to experience it again? The answer is definitely no.Manchester by the Sea is a brilliantly directed and written movie by Kenneth Lonergan, who definitely deserves recognition for his original screenplay and directing skills. Casey Affleck has his best performance ever thanks to a full-bodied character and an excellent script, as well as Michelle Williams and Lucas Hedger who also have amazing Oscar-worthy performances. A slow first act doesn't really bother me, but the devastating, depressing, sad tone that covers the whole film really affects me and I can't possibly see a replay value to it. Still, it's one of the best movies of 2016!MSB Reviews - If you like my reviews, please follow my blog :)

This movie brings out the best in Marvel's Cinematic Universe. Every character from Steve Rogers to Agent Maria has their own development. The storyline is exceptionally well crafted to a fulfilling and satisfying ending. The CGI is impeccable as well (and I thought the CGI in Iron Man 3 was already good!). Winter Soldier has many action sequences as well and I'm sure this will please many die hard Marvel fans. There were many humors as well, albeit they are somewhat mild, but the combined effect of the right placement of humor is extremely gratifying.The acting of Chris Evans and Scarlett are amazing too. Love seeing both of them together as they always bring out the funniest moment of the movie. Sebastian Stan is a good choice for villain for he brings out the darkness of Winter Soldier and many hidden stories of himself.If you've watched The First Avenger, it's a no doubt that Winter Soldier is a must watch for you. In fact, it's a must watch for everyone, even those non-Marvel fans! Stay till after the credits have finished rolling for the post credits scene.

Ant-Man delivers much of the fun, good (if silly) stretches of the comedy, and the wacky comic-book science fiction stuff that many of us come to expect from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's also a movie that caused some movie people to raise their eyebrows when the original director Edgar Wright parted ways with Marvel over some "creative differences". What was it exactly, we may never know, though there's been speculation about the studio and producers like Kevin Feige forcing on the other aspects of the MCU onto what is an origin story mostly unto itself about Dr. Hank Pym restarting his Ant-Man design with thief Scott Lang (Michael Douglas and Paul Rudd, both cast by Wright). Whatever the case, we now have the movie we have in front of us. For me, I saw little things that did indicate it was still Wright's work (and he shares script and story credit with Joe Cornish, along with Rudd and Adam McKay), while still being basically a fairly safe comic-book movie.What I mean by comic-book movie isn't meant to be a put-down, though with the deluge we've been getting in theaters (or it feels like that due to the over-marketing of them) there's always the possibility of fatigue from all of the explosions and daring-do. At the heart of Ant-Man is lots of goofy science that is explained in the way that it is through these kinds of movies, not just of the Marvel kind but just of any goofy sci-fi flick (atoms, and things becoming Sub-Atomic as well, which I'll get to later). At the same time it's also a father-daughter story, as both Pym and Lang are fathers who have to do right by them - it's what drives them both, and the scenes between Douglas and Evangeline Lilly feel strong enough in that regard (her mother, Hank's wife and the original Wasp we learn, died due to an accident in the 80's).We only see so much of Rudd and his daughter, and for me that was kind of perfunctory for the story: his drive to do right by his daughter is mentioned repeatedly, not least of which by his ex-wife and the girl's new father (Bobby Cannavale, always a welcome presence), but we only see so much of that bond between them, given that Lang's just gotten out of jail. But it's fine - the desire to see her will, I guess, drive him to have better control over his ant army (no kidding) to get into places and "steal stuff" as the trailer says. And for what he's asked for, Rudd makes this a fun, likable anti-turned-real hero, and delivers the quips and one-liners given with the comic umph that they're needed.The action moves swiftly enough and is directed competently. I mention 'competently' not to make Peyton Reed seem like some kind of hired hack - hired, though he was, he shows some visual flair, most notably when a character finally becomes "Sub-Atomic", which is as much a credit to the VFX wizards at Marvel studios, but is probably the highlight of the movie for me, when things story-wise get most desperate too - but is it missing its original director? This could be a good example to show in film schools down the line of how a script can have solid comic beats and unexpected moments for characters (primarily the wildest and funniest lines are given to Lang's co-horts in crime, most especially Michael Pena), while still missing a real visual edge. Again, this isn't badly directed exactly, and I'm sure things like the Thomas the Tank Engine gag, and not just what you see in the trailer but everything else, could have been screwed up in even more incapable hands.But maybe there could've been more to the villain. Here we get Corey Stoll as Cross, a pretty terrific actor (Midnight in Paris, House of Cards especially) and here we know who this character is - Pym's former protégé gone corporate criminal mastermind - from minute one, without any ambiguity. But it didn't make him very interesting, and I felt kind of sorry for such a guy as good as he is to be given a character who is at best two dimension if not less ("I saw too much of me in you," Hank basically says to Cross to explain to the audience why he is the way he is, the bad parts magnified). There's also some science with the character and the Yellow-Jacket suit that get rushed in the third act, but really it is another example of a Marvel villain getting the short-shrift; maybe not to the extent of Ronen in 'Guardians', but close enough.Still, the heroic side is what is most often strong in these MCU movies, and Rudd and Lilly deliver for the characters solid acting chops, and you care (up to a point at least) about the conflicts. Douglas does too, and maybe gives the most... most character, I guess (interesting, captivating, troubled, you pick). Pym has so much that has happened in his life, much heart-break, lost scientific dreams either stolen away from him or, worse, it went to his head. It makes me want to see an Ant-Man pre-origin movie, albeit with another actor (and no more weird CGI to make actors look younger, like in the opening scene of this - weird).He's the kind of star a film like this needs alongside the other capable and ready-to-do-this players, and makes Ant-Man a fun experience with its complex heist involving (yes) a fleet of ants, and the ability of the hero to shrink and grow large with the push of a button. A cool power, which I hope to see more of in these movies. But top tier for this studio? Not quite.

I just watched this film a few nights ago after many years. It is still a very great movie. It still played on my emotions. It got my 6 year old sister hooked, who has a 'low attention span' as you might call it. It was one of the most realistic films for it's age. It had one of the best story plots ever. The characters were perfect. The ending was very epic, and made tears come, especially during the the 'flying with style' line's second appearance when they are in the air at the end of the movie.I'm going to re-watch Toy Story 2 and hope that I can say the same thing about that one. But all I can say about Toy Story 1, is that it's the first movie I can honestly review as a 10.

Does anyone remember "About Last Night" with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore. Two people meet fall into a relationship and move in together. Then the couple has a fight and proceed to follow the advice of their friends instead of their hearts and winds up more deeply in love and understanding of one another but separated.Rob Lowe meets Demi Moore at a company softball game. Vince Vaughn meets Jennifer Aniston at a pro baseball game. They fight and break up and follow the advice of their friends. Rob Lowe listens to his buddy in the bar Jim Belushi (and at work). Vince listens to his buddy at the bar Jon Favreau, Vince has a brother giving him ill-advice at work. Demi Moore listens to Elizabeth Perkins. Jennifer listens to Joey Lauren Adams. Doing a nice comedic turn as usual.Neither are getting good advice and screw up the relationship badly, till it is almost unrepairable. This was like an extended episode of the TV show "Men Behaving Badly" mixed in with an episode of Oprah on proof that Men Don't Listen! STAY AWAY........STAY AWAY....... unless you think Jennifer got a nice tush and you want to see it.At least Rob Lowe and Demi Moore had on screen chemistry. You want to see them make it. I laughed at all the wrong moments in the Break Up.Rob Lowe and Demi Moore ride off into the sunset at the end of their movie. She rides her bike and he runs after her.****SPOILER ALERT**** At least the Break Up didn't cop out at the ending. They don't get back together. They run into each sometime later. They only give you a hint that they have feelings for each other without laying it on too thick.

Up to this point, the best film that John Cusack has done, in my humble opinion, is gross Pointe Blank. It was a classic. This will be right up there with that film and I will watch it many times before I die.I could not imagine that Cusack and Jack Black could meld together and make a great movie, but they did. Black was just the right touch in the store. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a music geek. I really don't care that much who wrote or performed a song. Music is just background. What I am saying is that you don't have to be a music geek to like a movie that takes place predominately in a record store.What was great was Cusack trying to figure out why he was a failure with women, especially Laura (Iben Hjejle). Hey, the guy lost Catherine Zeta-Jones. He needed to figure something out! It was funny, tender, and really worth my time.

Well, my summary may not be my most inspiring but it is meant wholeheartedly. First, I love "Rocky" and all of his sequels in their own way. I find it a great film and itself and the sequels show the "Hollywood spirit" during the years.Let us watch Rocky unbiased. The storyline in itself is a bit shallow: A Nobody gets a chance to fight the champ, he does it and wins his girl friend during the movie. The End. As I said shallow. But what Stallone did with this plot is amazing. He added many twists and turns to create a whole new plot. Instead many other Underdog-Sports-Movies, the underdog here is not a brilliant new talent or fallen-once-famous star but an average, down to earth bum like many of us know their whole life. Rocky is a bit of an idiot (we learn he is dyslexic in Rocky 2), but has strong own personal morals and thoughts. He is a bit of an Outcast, too. We see him with his sole friend Paulie (who seems not to be a real close friend) and the girl he adores, Paulie's sister. Adrian is too shy to even notice that Rocky adores her, which makes her an outcast too. The next twist Stallone adds is how this Nobody gets the title shot. It is not because the champ notices the talent or has revenge plans....It is mere coincidence of the original opponent having an injury and Creed now has to look for someone to fight on short notice. Since the fight is at the 4th of July he makes the genial decision to create a media hype by giving an unknown a title shot. And he only chooses Rocky because of his ring name "The Italian Stallion" ("Apollo Creed versus the Italian Stallion, sounds like a damn monster movie.") Then comes the film sequence of the training and all the story in between. Stallone walks here the fine line between a sports movie and a character development movie and he balances it superbly. We get to love this nerdy couple with all their all-to-well-known, ordinary troubles. We even learn to sympathize with the drunkard Paulie. And the training sequences are so great, the song "Gonna fly now" will always be engraved mentally to such training scene montages (as it itself or similar sounding copies are used up until today). Last in the movie is the fight. Many have commented on its unrealistic appearance. Hey, it is played by two actors, who, though being athletic and even college/pro-athletes, never were boxers. And though they trained with a boxing coach, they lacked the money to do it extensively. So they scripted the fight step by step, blow by blow. And then they rehearsed it. This is quite an accomplishment. And to me, the fight looks as well as some you see in today's actual rings. A word about the acting. Stallone shows here (like he does now too after leaving his action stardom behind) that he is quite a talented actor. The supporting cast is great, from heavies like Meredith and Young (both doing great scenes here, Oscar-worthy) to then unknowns like Carl Weathers and Thalia Shire.The production is great too, thinking of the limited budget.I was fascinated by the camera work, which is better than many big-budgeteers at that time. If you love well made and emotional gripping films, who may have a bit of sports thrown into it, you definitely will love "Rocky". As to my statement that the sequels are documentary of how movies in their time were like, read my comments there.

F O X , Fox thats Joe Fox, Tom Hanks' character who wants to rule the world. The Book world at least anyway. This is as fine a Tom Hanks / Meg Ryan film as you will see. Both personalities were made for this script although it is more likely the script was made with then in mind. Hanks' world is dominated with being the 'Book Zsar' of New Yorks West Side but his life is turned upside down after an encounter in a jammned elevator. Meg Ryan is the sugary sweet heroine who falters not and just about keeps it together in the face of personal disaster. The characters transformation from bitter business rivals to the inevitable lovers is both as pleasant as it is expected. This does not spoil the film however as the journey to this end is what makes this film superb. Both Hanks and Ryan seem familiar in these roles and so they should as the characters could be straight out of 'Sleepless' in another timeline.

Hearing it from others, those who reads the book saying it's awesome i really expect it to be good, and i didn't just watch in it 3D but A VIP 4dx. Damn it. The story was stupid, nothing really make sense, nothing interest me, people trapping in those walls for years??? Really? They could have build some ladders or something??? They totally stayed there wasted for so long. Moreover, in the love part,it is again,stupid and lame. The ending was lame too. And those actors aren't that handsome either, except for Minho who ain't even the main character. Totally not worth my money and time, and now i am wasting it again to warn you guys. Thank you.

I'm a big Civil War fan and I've seen most of the movies about the era except this. My aunt recommended it saying it was great. I rented it and started to watch. It's a love story! Not a war movie. But I watched it anyway.Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) is a stuck up, beautiful southern bell from Georgia and a gambling captain, Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) falls in love with her. Most of the movie is just Scarlett sitting around complaining how she can't marry another woman's husband by the name of Ashley (Leslie Howard). But within the last half hour their child manages to die, they go to Paris, and sit around in a mansion watching Rhett get angry with Scarlett.I know the film was a breakthrough in film. The film does have its upsides. The filming locations selected were dazzling, the recreation of the escape from Atlanta was doen very well and Clark Gable gives off the sense of a true southern gentleman. However, the story focus' way too much on Scarlett and half way through the movie she just is annoying and boring to watch. If you like love story, it isn't bad. For a drama, it is sub par. Gone With The Wind. Starring: Clark Gable, Vivien Liegh, Leslie Howards, Olivia de Havilland, and Thomas Mitchell.3 out of 5 Stars.

TV shows get better and better. And weirder and more complex too. There are a lot of great TV shows out there and Dexter is one of them. It's tough to say or compare this with something else. I started watching this right after I finished with "The Shield". Let's say the mind set on a couple of things weren't that different. Both have a lead character in common, who is not really a hero ... and that is putting it mildly.Coming into this, I only knew that the actor (Michael C. Hall), whom I knew from Six Feet Under (another great show) was in this and he was ridding the world of bad people, while working for the police. Now that sounds simpler than it actually is and this is not your typical story. I also knew that Jennifer Carpenter was in this, though I had no idea what role she was playing. And I can tell you that is the best thing that can happen, if you are able to go into a show like this, with as little information as possible.Obviously if you're still out to get information you will find it, there are enough people who like to share/spoil with the world what is happening. I'll tell you that this show is not for children (although apparently they did work on alternate versions, concerning the swearing as Ms. Carpenter confirmed on Talk Shows). But nudity and blood is not just thrown in without reason. Like the Sopranos, just because it could get away with showing certain things, it didn't just bathe in them.The show that feels real, while being surreal (Dexters "father" to name but one factor being one of the surreal parts, his voice in his head, actually being what he things at that moment and not a voice over from the future, which is a common trait in TV/movies), is written and acted in a great fashion. It may have a few moments where it seems to copy itself (Doakes/Quinn analogy comes to mind, names that you'll recognize once you've watched the movie), but never really does. The dialog and the acting is on a level that never makes you question that this was written, instead it feels natural.If you haven't hopped on the train yet, you should get on it as soon as possible. Not every show has a cliffhanger, but when there is one, it is one that will almost drive you crazy. Something that cannot be said about the show in general, because it is that good

Penny Marshall's Awakenings is a very emotional movie and heartwarming to say the least. Marshall has out done herself with this picture. The movie is a masterpiece. Robin Williams is great and Robert De Niro should have won the Oscar for his performance in this movie. De Niro hits every note perfectly and shows why he is the greatest actor of his generation. The movie is well written by Steven Zaillian and Penny Marshall did a super job. Bring a hankerchief to this one.

Seeing this film makes me as giddy as a 12 year old! I, like many others, was a tad bit worried when I heard Chris Columbus was directing (being a major Terry Gilliam fan, especially), but I must say, Mr Columbus brought the book to life in a magical sort of way! This movie is also great for filling in the seemingly endless gap between Harry Potter books.As well, I couldn't love the actors any better, especially precious Daniel Radcliffe, who's star shines brighter than a golden snitch in the sun. His ability to "become" Harry is completely amazing. Of course to give credit where much is due, everyone involved did an incredible job with "Harry Potter & the Sorcerers/Philosophers Stone".I have no complaints of this film, and can't wait to see all the extra footage on DVD. Some minor, teeny-tiny details were missing, which is totally understandable. If included, the movie would have stretched on for a day. Fine with me, but then again, others may not see it as I do : )

I was looking forward to see Moonlight after it won the "Best Picture" award. Had to be something special - right? I was very disappointed. Good cinematography, some good acting, but no plot, no character development, and if there weren't subtitles I wouldn't have had a clue what the characters were talking about. Oh, and the main character said maybe 200-250 words the entire movie!

There is a new trend in Hollywood. Its unofficial name might be : "Shortage of original scripts and producing dumber , sillier and flashier movies based on comics , toys or PC games" I mean come on this is directed by Stephen Sommers and once you see his name you know that it is not Oscar material but after you see the movie ( finishing it might be a real ordeal for a regular average thinking person with some artistic taste ) any hope that there might be some substance in it quickly vanishes.G.I. Joe Rise of Cobra is basically a toy movie aimed for children and Hasbro fans in 1980'ies with large dose of US Army propaganda mixed. Every character , conversation , line was thinner than one dimensional. Channing Tatum might be a good dancer but he sucks when he tries to act as a soldier. Marlon Wayans was standard stereotype funny black sidekick...Adewale Akinnouye , Rachel Nichols , Said Taghmaoui were all one functional team members with their distinctive abilities and accents that's all....Snake Eyes played by Ray Parks only well laid out character and when your only well remembered character is a nameless ninja who does not utter a word throughout whole movie it means something is wrong in script writing...Veteran professional actors like Jonathan Pryce , Dennis Quaid , Arnold Vosloo and Christopher Eccleston should be embarrassed for their awful characterizations. I mean these are decent actors but material given them to perform was beyond terrible. ( Economic crisis must have hit Hollywood worse than I thought ) Adding Victoria's Secret top model Karolina Kurkova as a soldier with long unmilitary feminine hair and fatigues is a cheap shot to bait juvenile male viewers...I am at loss to describe the character writing of James Gordon Lewitt's Rex/Doctor. Not only awfully overdone it was copied directly from Star Wars along with his and Destro's change. And the plot was so over cliché and simplistic ( launching missiles with deadly warheads to spread chaos , US President ) with stereotype simplistic speeches/coversations ( I AM SOOOO EVIL HAHAHAHA ) it wouldn't even be shown in a live action cartoon series anymore.What was good ? Well CGI , special effects and sets were not bad but hey that was a Stephan Sommers film what do you expect ? He tries to sell movie through CGI ( like Michael Bay does )

Everyone raves about "The Godfather" and its achievements. I say it's all a matter of opinion. The performances are probably what makes this film a work of art. It'd be nearly impossible to find another film where Diane Keaton, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, James Caan, and the rest of the cast do work of such quality. Even in the sequel, they begin to slack off (with the exception of Keaton and Pacino). What this movie also benefits from is the power of the story, but there are moments where the overall mood becomes oppressive and a bit too slow.The film is a joy to behold, with an evocative score, sensational photography, and many other great elements. Would I put it up there at the top of the heap? There are other films that are more consistent, whose elements work well as a solid unit and deliver more satisfactory results.

i have watched this films both theater version and directors cut and to be honest i have never watched such a good warfare movie, all the actors portray characters that suit them perfectly and the story was great and amusing, i prefer this movie than all the others of its type, i actually think its much better than the 'gladiator'. i kept hoping for Saladin to come from the start, i was abit disappointed he came later in the movie since it was more focused on balian and Sybilla which was totally unnecessary but i still loved how Saladin's character was major at the second half of the movie, and the Syrian actor ghassan massoud was amazing at portraying the great Arabic Kurdish leader...overall the movie was perfect but it disappointed me that they didn't look closely into Saladin's life as much they did in Balian's.

Simply perfect. It's fantastic how the feeling comes through the screen. It became one of my favorites. However the first time I found it strange, and didn't know what it is up to. Then I watched it again and again...It became one of my favorites. And Benicio Del Toro, well, unique and superb acting. Exhillarating. The movements, mimics, and this transformation for this film( I mean the appearance.) Really realistic for that era. Altogether, I suggest everyone to see this film. The best parts, are those weird scenes, the race in the desert, the elevator with Cameron Diaz, the circus, and the police officers' meeting. That atmosphere in those scenes reflects the feeling the directors wanted very successfully.

The Conjuring is a good horror movie because: It is just like Scary Movie (yes - the comedy) in that it pulls identical scenes from multiple scary movies, but maybe not to the point that most realize it. Just enough to give you the sense that eerily you have seen this before, a sense of "déjà vu." (See Insidious, The Haunting - same actress even - which is what tipped me off, Amityville Horror, etc.)Then it adds it's own elements to create a movie. Learning from past mistakes and using what worked. Hence it's high rating and effect on people who watch it.This equation would allow for many more great movies to be made if utilized correctly. I gave it a high rating based on this realization and having taken note of other peoples reactions. I have to applaud this seemingly obvious and easy formula.

This isn't just one of my favourite remakes, when I was a kid, this was one of my favourite films period. Not only do I think that this is closer to the book than the original, I think that the scenes that were also in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory are actually even better in this remake, but the film does have its problems. Is Johnny Depp's take on Willy Wonka as annoying as everyone says? Honestly I don't think so, but I can see where people who think it is are coming from. Is Charlie's character as overly perfect as everyone says? I guess but when you get down to it, he was written to be a sort of role model to kids, to show them the right values and morals to have.One good point to note is that the only scene removed from the original in this remake that is noticeable is Willy Wonka's Death Tunnel (as I like to call it) which, lets be honest, was definitely removed for good reason. Take it from someone who was not that phased by films such as The Shining and Alien that the Death Tunnel scene from the original is scary enough to scar kids for life, and if that was remade in this remake... *shudders at the thought of a new Death Tunnel scene*I think one reason this film gets quite a lot of hate is because the hate is coming from fans of the original film, but I think that what they don't realise is that this film was not so much a remake of the old film, but more a new film adaption from the book by Roald Dahl drawing little inspiration from the original movie and more from the original source, the book. And considering Roald Dahl actually didn't like the original movie for not being close enough to the book, it was probably for the best.Overall I'd see this film is definitely a great watch for Roald Dahl fans, but maybe not for die hard fans of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and all with less insanely frighting tunnels from hell, meaning no therapy needed after watching this remake!7/10.

Very Entertaining, Great Martial Arts (as one would expect from Jackie Chan) and a young Eddie Murphy (in the shape of Chris Tucker) Enjoy this Movie with a bottle of bud and a Chinese takeaway. I did !!!!Watch out for Chris Tucker when he meets the brothers in the pool hall. Its a very funny scene.

I don't understand how this is 7.8. I am a fair reviewer and this is at most a 6 by IMDb standards.It is well rendered, and there are some innovative parts, the characters which were excellently formed in the first one have now no consistency, the subplots clumsily come together, and no matter how many reviewers say this has adult and child appeal, it really is aimed at very young children.if I was to compare it in standard, you are looking at a Ice Age/Madagascar standard instead of the Kung Fu Panda/Toy Story 3 level.Worth a watch but 7.8 sounds a bit fishy to me

Without a doubt the best of the Star Wars trilogy. It almost goes without saying. Even if you like another of the Star Wars film better for whatever reason, you cannot say that artistically and technically that those movies are better. That would be on the level of saying that the Goodfellas (which is one of the Master's best films)was better than the Godfather(I or II). Everything from the cohesive sharpness of the dialogue ("I know" has to be up there with "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn")to the visual mastery was used to pure perfection. Surprisingly, the visual effects did not really stick out, blending into the story seamlessly. Granted the last scene of ROTJ is quite an adrenaline fest, the effects were all ROTJ really had. I put this movie on the pedestal belonging to the cavalcade of the great poetic movies: Ikiru, 400 Blows, Pather Panchali, etc. and the great epics: Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 and so on.Even if you don't like Star Wars in general or have never watched it; this is not one to pass over lightly.

This is a very good Movie and I think 11 year old Lindsay Lohan, a professional actor who played both Hallie and Annie, spanned the gap between screen and audience and made me fell like I was there. I love the way this Movie treats children with respect.Remember how Annie had the shivers when she saw Hallie's photo of her dad's back? That scene can only be truly understood if something like that happened to you. I know, because that feeling never goes away.

I really think that the positive comments for this movie must have been written by shills for the studio. How a producer could give this film a green light and show it to the public is beyond comprehension. How Emily Watson's character could ever be REMOTELY interested in Adam Sander's character, let alone love him, is ridiculous. Bad, pointless, and a complete waste of 90 minutes.

Plot, Character, Setting, Symbols, Themes: The five components of storytelling, from greatest to least important. Ridley Scott's overemphasis on the last three didn't blind me like so many others to the fact the the plot was limp and the characters were dull. Sure, Blade Runner's visuals were brilliant and the moody tones in the Vangelis soundtrack enhanced the dystopian future setting, but the plot? It's nothing more than Deckard (Harrison Ford) hunting down androids who want to live past their shut down date. Cool premise, I agree, but It's basically a 45 minute Star Trek episode stretched into a two hour show off of visual effects. Even as a 9 year old when I first saw this snore fest the only thing I remembered was the female android's nipples and the flying ships. Years later, in my twenties, when I thought my tastes had matured, I sat in a darkened theatre to see Ridley Scott's directors cut, sans supposed "annoying" and "unnecessary" Harrison Ford voice-over, that's all that kept me awake through the film. Ford's narration was put into the film by the studio because there was so much dead time between action scenes. Even though a golden rule of writing is to "Show it-don't tell it," the producers wisely realized that without the Ford narration, few audiences members could tolerate the slow pace. The only reason this film made any money was because of Ford's star power and it would have completely bombed were it not for the voice-over.So by the time we got to Rutger Hauer's end of film, "should have been Oscar nominated" soliloquy, I was happy the film was finally almost over. I didn't care about the "mind blowing" twist at the end inferring that Ford's character Deckard was a replicant either. I was just happy I could go home and get a sleep in my bed instead of the movie theatre chair.High ratings on IMDb for Blade Runner a simply because of non-random sampling bias. Watch it again people, especially if you have insomnia, the pedestrian plotting and flat characters will put you to sleep.

Without waxing too rhapsodic, film doesn't get any better than this! Evocative, touching without being saccharine, and -- a dying breed -- a movie that's ABOUT something. This is one of those films that never gets old either in its message or its style. Unlike many other films that rely too heavily on voiceover narration, the film uses just enough of the poetry of Harper Lee's first-person tale to set the stage and bookend her poetic fable. And the characters are not stereotypes, nor even mere archetypes. Gregory Peck is splendidly dignified and understated as Atticus Finch, and Mary Badham and Brock Peters are first rate. Robert Duvall's "Boo" Radley is one of the great performances in all of film. The lyrical score (Elmer Bernstein), black-and-white cinematography (Russell Harlan), and beautifully detailed art direction (Henry Bumstead) support Robert Mulligan's deft direction. Parents, take your children to see this film! -- at a revival or repertory theater if possible, or if not, rent the widescreen version of the video. This is better education in social values than can be had in classroom -- and can't help but touch young people at their core without being preachy or self-righteous. For audiences of all ages, "To Kill a Mockingbird" more than survives repeated viewing. Without a shred of sentimentality, this film leaves not a dry eye in the house.

This movie was surprisingly good, i went in with preconceptions of a wasted 8 bucks. The movie is perfect for all ages. I went with a friend of mine after they didn't let us into blood diamond, and it felt like I was watching a classic Disney movie.The quality of the story telling was very good; the humor is great for all ages, I am 17 and i was cracking up, as well as the family with 10 year old kids behind me. Ben Stiller does a great job of acting the part of a dim-witted security guard; he does a great job of not being a funny character, but a regular guy in funny situations.The story itself is a fun romp through history and natural science and fun for the entire family. 8 out of 10.

Cover of movie is not so appealing..if you are a person that judges a book by its cover than you will definitely be disappointed by its cover...theme of the movie is boring but story becomes interesting with the entry of bay-max . ..bay-max is a very cute and innocent character..bay-max actions are so lovely that viewers can easily fall in love with him...the climax of movie is not properly executed..though end of movie is full of emotions..love the innocence of character of bay-max...movie theme was not so good ,but the animated characters bring life into the boring and slow movie theme...this is the most lovely and lightest movie i have ever seen...the dialogs of the movie are excellent..one will definitely feel lighter after watching this movie.

This film is, without a doubt, one of the greatest films of all time. I will not try to analyze it hear, or use fancy lingo. I don't know that I would do it any justice. The storyline is simple, but the film is so complex. The characters are great and we participate in their introspection - as you would expect from Bergman... The first time I saw this film I did not like it. I had to go back a year or two later. I recommend anyone who is serious about film, who hasn't seen it or did not like it the first time to watch again. This is pure cinema, art , genius. A highly qualified 10/10.

James Spader is an amazing actor. I love him in this show and if he were not a part of the cast then I would probably rate this show a 6 or 7 instead of an 8. At times the plots are a bit corny but the show always has me coming back for more. It does start off a little slow but quickly turns up the heat after a few episodes. If you're into crime thrillers than give this show a go and don't bother with the very few who say it's terrible. It's a very good show that seems to get better and better with each episode!If you enjoyed Dexter, Breaking Bad and shows of that genre. Then you'll most likely enjoy this new series.

Remember the it exactly what you would expect from Disney, a highly watchable , feel good movie and that is not a critisism. In fact ,in my opinion Disney do not make enough movies of this ilk. Denzil Washington comes up trumps again with this film. Apart from his superb acting ability , he has a unique knack of picking great scripts, even De Niro picks his fair share of duff movies but not Denzil. Another two actors who impress in this film are Child star Hayen Panettire and Ryan Hurst. Don't expect anything out of the ordinary in this film , it is a film about winning while battling against nasty racist bigotry and is a little predictable in that respect but maybe that shows my prejudace by saying that. One question that springs to mind is Were the white Americans really this racist and if so are they still? If so , im glad i live in a country that has a good racial blend and mixes with each other without the racism of the U.S Sit back and enjoy this film , you will like it. 8 out of 10.

This is a clearly a high-prestige sort of sci-fi movie, what with Carl Sagan's name attached, and no doubt a large budget. Frankly, I was disappointed; I found it very talky, more pretentious than profound (as if, for a largely science-fiction-fan audience, there's anything daring or even controversial in the notion of funding scientific research and reaching out to possible extraterrestrial life!), freighted with a truly awful, unwatchable performance by Matthew McConaughey (with his accent, popping eyes, and bared teeth, he seems to be doing a bad impression of William F. Buckley, Jr.), and featuring only two action scenes, one of them genuinely gripping, the other so-so. // What interested me more than the film itself was listening to two of the three commentaries included on the DVD. The one by director Robert Zemeckis addressed itself almost entirely to the complicated and expensive special effects that seem a component of just about every scene; it's an initially interesting subject that eventually grows tedious and rather dry. Conversely, the voice-over commentary by Jodie Foster shows that this intelligent actress and filmmaker is even brainier, more thoughtful, and more articulate than I'd imagined. Her performance in the commentary is, in fact, even more impressive and gratifying than her performance on screen.

This was an excellent movie, and though not without its flaws, does as good a job as Hollywood could ever be expected of doing with such a film. In seeing this movie, I have to say it is what I did not see that I appreciate most. I did not see an action film, although there were certainly those elements, it did not overwhelm. I found the violence did not get to be overdone, although it is a terribly violent film. I did see elements of the rawness of war, although not perhaps enough. I am sure they could not do more without alienating the audience. They presented a number of different viewpoints and interestingly a subtle commentary on some underlying ethnic issues in the diamond industry and Africa and insight into the real problems of the diamond industry, especially in that the are horded to be artificially scarce; any diamond creating a market for war. As regards the technical elements of the film, direction is quite good as one would expect from my comments above, and script writing and production are excellent. I think Connelly's character needed more development and is a bit too pristine. I think the direction lacked focus a bit here. DiCaprio is good, but the accent is awful. Hounsou is excellent. All in all, a film worth watching if one can accept the violence.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" follows our heroes Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they set out to find the seven objects, known as Horcruxes in the film, that will evidently destroy the evil Voldermort. It is a extremely difficult task since not only are they hidden in unknown places, but also the knowledge on how to destroy them is unknown too. There is also one more person who faces an extremely difficult task too, director David Yates. Can he possibly make a Potter movie that not only takes place out of the familiar Hogwarts and is much more dramatic still lovable to J.K. Rowling's fans? David Yates has surpassed Christopher Columbus in terms of handling the reigns with the popular series. Columbus up until now was the only one who directed more than one Potter film. The third film (Azakaban) was directed by Alfanso Cauron and the fourth (Goblet) was directed by Mike Newell. Yates, then came in and handled the fifth (Order), sixth (Half-Blood Prince), and finally this film, that has been split into two parts. The reasoning being because nothing is being cut out of the this time around. Fans rejoiced when they found out they would be getting a five hour conclusion to their beloved series. Yates has said to have brought out the maturity in the series that it needed. Under his eye, the films definitely have more of an adult feel to them. Signs of the change were present the second "Order of Phoenix" started with Potter's evil cousin, Dudley, finally got what was coming to him. Even before Dudley came face to face with one of the most feared inhabitants of the wizarding world, you could sense something terrible was bound to happen. Yates perfectly nailed the sense of dreariness through the flushed out colors and perfectly placed camera angles. Then in "The Half Blood Prince" he created a very sympathetic character out of Horace Slughorn, with the help of Jim Broadbeant. Here, he keeps the same gift for creating dread and despair. One of the first scenes in the film, a poor ex-teacher at Hogwarts, hangs in the air while Voldermort's crew discusses their next move. We know, as does she, it is just a matter of time before she bites the dust. It is detail like this that make these films establish the dark tone that Yates is going for.Before I make the poor guy seem like a one-dimensional director, I will point out some of the other strong points that he possesses as a director. There are some scenes of thrilling action and creativity that are just a sight to see. When Harry, Ron, and Hermione, must infiltrate the Ministry of Magic, they drink the physical form changing Poly Juice Potion, to turn into awkward adults. This scene is a joy to watch because it is adventurous and quite comical. Another scene is when Hermione tells a wizard fairy tale. I won't go into detail about it, but it shows how much these films have taken an identity of their own. An identity that we will only get to enjoy for only 150 minutes more.Grade= B

So it's an annoying pattern for me with some of these summer films. They mostly go like this: a so so story, average acting at best and great special effects/action. That's pretty much what we have here. I wasn't expecting much going in given as I felt like they just finished making the original trilogy and this film was somewhat unnecessary. But after the debacle that was Spider-Man 3, it was probably inevitable. Truthfully though, my low expectations were met. First of all there are some tweaks to the story, but that's to be expected of a reboot. Some changes I liked, some I didn't. For the most part, they stayed true to the story line you'd expect. However, it was a bit formulaic and the themes were still fairly simple and somewhat childish, but it's a comic book film, so I can't get too upset about that, right? Well, not exactly. I know, it's just comic book movie, but The Dark Knight has spoiled me, I'm sorry. I'm still hoping for a bit of a darker tweak to the franchise at some point. The film definitely got better as it went along, much better. The first third of the film did feel really rushed to me a it seemed they wanted to very quickly setup the known elements of the origin story to get to the action and later story arcs. Kind of surprising, I mean, I think we know the Spider-Man story at this point don't we? But I digress. It was was over the top in a number of ways. The soundtrack was over done and pushed the sentimentality a little too much for my liking. And it was also way too cheesy, I had a few too many "oh come on" moments. Particularly one that was just so over the top I gasped, but it's one the young ladies in the theatre loved; it was both romantic and incredibly cheesy.Andrew Garfield was definitely a solid choice, he clearly felt much more like Peter Parker than Tobey McQuire did. He was very shy, awkward and a little troubled, staying true to the Peter Parker we've seen while effectively improving on those performances. I'm curious now to re-watch the original trilogy to see how I feel about him in that role after seeing this. He and Emma Stone are cute together and much more likable than Tobey and Kirsten Dunst were (especially Dunst, who I found annoying). The film had a childish playfulness to it that I enjoyed and found authentic and this was directly because of them. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were also good in the limited roles they had.The high point of the film were the special effects, hands down. I loved the Lizard, easily the best visualization of him I've seen to date. He was very sinister and a little dark. Also loved the voice over work done for him as well. Didn't really care much for the Rhys Ifans pre-lizard character however, felt he was not as compelling as Alfred Molina's Doc Oc. Spider-Man looked fantastic, the effects for him have clearly gotten better, much better. Given the new bar set here for special effects, I can't wait to see what they do with Venom later in the series.Now having said all that, this was fairly entertaining. The fight scenes were very impressive and well choreographed. It definitely had a genuine comic book and cartoon feel to it and I thought was cool in a nostalgic kind of way. It reminded me very much of the Fox afternoon Spider-Man cartoon I used to watch back in my early high school days. So definitely credit there, as I don't think any of the original films did this for me to this extent. I was however baffled by the rapturous applause it got at the end in my theatre. I can't remember the last film that got that much applause, to be really honest (not even The Avengers got that). Was it good, yes. Was it deserving of that kind of applause, no. But then again, I'm a bit snobby I guess, so to each his own. In a nutshell; it was enjoyable and I look forward to the rest of this series with this improved cast. But the standard for Spider-Man movies remains 2004's Spider-Man 2. http://www.themoviesnob.ca/@the_movie_snob

The movie was enjoyable. It's sort of an odd couple movie and it really works because the director hired the right actresses for the parts. I don't normally like Sandra Bullock as she's a bit to snobby for my taste but she was right for her part. Melissa McCarthy is always funny and even if she's a bit over the top her antics were a lot of fun to watch. It's a silly movie but it will still show you a good time because it has a plot and a good script. Anytime I go to a movie (with my wife) expecting not to enjoy it and am surprised otherwise means yahoo..."TWO THUMBS UP". Go see it or rent it, you won't be disappointed.

I have been watching "The X Files" since I was 11-12 years old. The series was still on at the time, and what can I say I was hooked. While my initial interest in the series had more to do with the gorgeous Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), it was the creative and amazing story telling that kept me hooked on the series. I have been a fanatic of the show for a log time, and will never stop loving it.

This is one of Hitchcock's better movies, using the standard- the idiots can't get out of the darn place there at for some weird reason formula that Hitchcock uses in movies like- The Lady Vanishes, Rope, Life Boat etc. were there only in one place- looking out at others, or even looking in to the people there. This is very cool use of editing as always, switching between the views of five or so different people through the course of the film. The Basic Plot outline is some guy with a broken leg is forced with that evil thing known as boredom, so he becomes a peeping tom, he witnesses very strange happenings at one of the houses he's "Peeping" in at and suspects murder, over time it quickly unravels and all hell breaks loose!It features an amazing performance from all the actors! This is one of the very best movies ever, and one of the best Hitchcock movies ever!If you love Hitchcock, Mystery's, Thrillers, Suspense, or just want to have your mind messed with to the point when you'll be scared of anything- even a flower bed, then you'll love this movie

At first glance this would be the perfect horror movie-5 kids alone in a cabin in the woods when sinister things start to occur and people start dying. Perfect right? And the movie seems that way, that is until right when its about to actually get scary, the movie is interrupted with a cheesy subplot that destroys everything scary about it. If the ending is ignored this could be an actually great scary movie to watch with your friends, but all of that is thrown away with a downward slide of corny, cheesy stupidly planned garbage that fails to horrify anyone. The end of this movie is so frustratingly corny the whole movie is thrown away and you find yourself sitting on the couch thinking: Well that was a wast of my time. If you enjoy corny movies featuring the monsters of your childhood nightmares, then this is the movie for you.

The plaintive wail of an harmonica echoes across a dusty landscape flattened by a merciless sun. Soon, the savage, ringing chords of an electric guitar answer in explosive dissonance. In front of this aural disruption a weatherbeaten humanity scrambles in and out of buildings and across walkways hacked from trees and thrown together too roughly. A fearsome lust to own the land draws the righteous and the corrupt alike. There is greed aplenty. Murder is no stranger. And vengeance hangs in the air. Sergio Leone's undying love for the Western reached its zenith in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. The film is a sprawling tapestry come to life, teeming with energy, highly stylized in its look and tempo. Like SHANE before it, Leone's unqualified masterpiece has influenced every Western in its wake. The film is complemented greatly by the magnificence of Ennio Morricone's music and Tonino Delli Colli's breathtaking widescreen photography. The performances are seminal works. Though Henry Fonda had played it hard and mean before (see John Ford's FORT APACHE and MY DARLING CLEMENTINE), he knocked the audience for a loop with his grizzled bad guy. Robards gives his world-weary rogue irresistible charm. Bronson is galvanizing as the man on a mission (he's SHANE gone slightly maniacal). And the graceful determinism of Cardinale adds a much needed civility to the surrounding upheaval. This is Leone's greatest film and ONCE is absolutely essential viewing. Other Westerns worth viewing: RED RIVER (1948); HIGH NOON (1952); SHANE (1953); FORT APACHE (1948); MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946)

This is a movie that you have to admire, but at the same time it has one big flaw, mainly that too much time is spent in the company of the rather dull commando force giving Alec Guinness's brilliant performance short shrift. It's as if director David Lean needed to have William Holden in the movie for a long space of time if only to ensure box office success. Still, when it's on the right tracks, this really tugs at the heart. When Guinness realises his labour of love, the bridge, is about to be destroyed, only the coldest of hearts would feel nothing.

On his first day, Cameron (Joseph Gordon Lewitt) falls head over heels for the most popular girl in school, Bianca (Larisa Oleynik) who seems to quietly reciprocate his feelings. The problem is that Bianca is not allowed to date until her older anti-social sister Kat (Julia Stiles) does because their father is overbearing and, let's face it, pretty mental. Determined to win Bianca over, Cameron thus sets up a payment-plan for the school badboy- and outcast Pat (Heath Ledger) to take her 'difficult' sister out. So begins a romantic piece of characters, promises and hidden intentions, all escalating to an enjoyable teen mess.Classic Shakespearean stories typically translate well on screen. 10 Things I Hate About You is one of them, but it is glazed with a lush modern High School movie coating. The result is a sensationally creative comedy that keeps you laughing and engrossed throughout. It features some viciously quotable dialogue, in particular from the quick mouth of Julia Stiles' character but also the token black teacher who is fed up with white prissy students in his class never having any 'real' problems. The film occasionally falls prey to predictable sappiness, especially toward the end, shifting to Hollywood auto-pilot. I don't want to use the word 'cliché' here because as far as teen comedies go, 10 Things I Hate About You was made just before the grand influx of similar-natured films, making it fairly original. However, yes, it does feature some very recognizable teen scenarios.10 Things I Hate About You can proudly boast of being Heath Ledger's claim to fame, in his original Aussie accent. This film also welcomes a refreshingly funny Julia Stiles, vaulting her into the world of respectable films. On some basic level, teen comedies nearly always satisfy me. But 10 Things I Hate About You is not only satisfactory, but it is excellent. 8/10

Interesting. The movie makes you think about various issues. But it generates more than anything, an approach to oneself. To me it made me think, what if there were more people identical to me? Clones of myself. Many clones, endless clones of myself. Life would be really great. And this view of Earth from the Moon, is striking. It will not be a movie to remember all my life, but it's a good movie, I recommend it. 8/10PS: Buy your popcorn PD2: Sausages PD3: Hot Dogs PD4: The film is set in the Wild West...

Another one of those movies that are so annoying, sometimes you squeeze them really really hard for a laugh or two. ben stiller, one of the funniest guys ever, plays this dumb idiot supermodel who only knows how to model. that is all he seems to know. but competition is among the supermodels, as a fresh new face wants to steal zoolander's gig as the "extremely good looking" model. owen and ben are so so funny, but they are so much better than this. i mean, it is as dumb as it could be, so they are finally telling the truth about models like they are portraying. they colored over the plot with 5 or 6 different highlighters, and eventually it fades away and all you are left with is rubble. i did enjoy one scene, (**SPOILER**) and that is when derek and some other male models are splashing gas on each other and drinking something orange at a gas station to the "wake me up! before you go go!" song. if anyone knows who sang that song, please email me. i want to play that song while i pump gas in the car. i am not being sarcastic. i am so serious. well, if you really like ben stiller's works like something about mary or meet the parents, you are going to feel empty when you are watching this movie. he isnt living up to his potential, as a comedic actor. he took a chance, and messed up. He should go to the (**SPOILER**) "derek zoolander school for kids that cant read the scripts good." (C- D+)

I do not understand why everyone hates this movie! This is one of Leonardo Dicaprios best performances. Cate Blanchet is also great as Katherine Hepburn. This film is so well directed and filmed by Martin Scorcese that it makes you feel like you are in the time period that the movie takes place in. This film has a very nostalgic feel to it. I especially liked how Martin Scorcese used music that matched the time period and filmed it using the color techniques that were used in the era this takes place in. It made the movie have a older feel to it like you were really in the time period. This is one of Martin Scorceses most underrated films. I especially loved the scenes that showed Howard Hughes directing movies because that sort of thing really interests me and it is cool to see how they did visual effects back in the 1920's. Any fan of martin Scorcese should watch this and anyone that is interested in Howard Hughes should watch this also. It does seem a little long and draggy in certain parts but it didn't bother me because i found this film so interesting. This is now one of my favorite films because it is beautifully directed and acted and it gives you an insight on early film making and on Howard Hughes and the people he associated with such as Ava Gardner and Katherine Hepburn. Bravo!

I have used IMDb as a reference and benchmark for films for a while now. I never registered, nor posted, nor any such thing.....until this film. That's right, I went out of my way to register and go through the whole authentication nonsense just to second the title of this thread. W. T. F. I watched this movie because some nutters decided to rate this film so highly it featured in the top 250 movies of all time.....my goodness me do a whole pile of voters...and film makers...and film investors, not to mention actors, need to get some real social skills, go meet some people and find out what the world is really like cos this film is the biggest pile of mammoth dung I have seen since AI. No offence intended to anyone: Im speaking generically, not personally. Pointless movie. Poorly shot in places - I can see where they were trying to be clever, but it just wasn't. Some interesting attempts at what i will now call 'movie jazz' (filming around the main event rather than the main event itself, bit like jazz musicians hitting the offkey note rather than on), but it was so haphazardly done, with too many incidental nobodies that it BARELY held itself together. And the bad guy? PLEEASE! he was pathetically overly-intensified (and not event that intense anyway). Were we all supposed to be scared by his personal honour system? Or his methods? Or the fact that all the hit men in the film (well, all two of them) were 'superhunters' that could find you in minutes if your granny crapped in a trailer park 50 years ago? PLEASE! Some parts of the film were just SO terribly implausible (within the framework presented ie modern world, not some alien land with sci-fi options) that it was impossible to want to get behind any of the cast, good or bad, because none of them did anything worth relating to or agreeing with! (I don't want an answer to this, so don't give one - but WHOSE IDEA was the whole 'stick the suitcase through the ventilation shaft' scene? what an unjustifiable load of nonsense...what exactly was that meant to achieve?) What a lot of twaddle. I have only EVER seen 3 films that I didn't want to watch to the end - and this was one. And Im not a 'coen hater' or a 'coen lover' - im a film lover, and this one just doesn't deserve any lovin'. The ONLY points it gets from me are for the way it was made - as with the vast majority of modern scripts the script was TERRIBLE...not just bad, but TERRIBLE! Every scene seemed to be making some sort of poor effort at 'clever' one-liner types of pregnant humour, but they were so amateur and so thinly veiled that I can only presume EVERYONE involved was a juvenile film buff who is so under-developed socially that they couldn't spot the thinness of it all as they were making it. I will be shaking my head over this film for years to come...

This movie tells the attempt to rob the vault of three major Las Vegas casinos by a group of professional thieves led by Danny Ocean (George Clooney). It's a very light film, made for entertaining, with an improbable but fun plot, full of moments of intelligent humor that look good in the movie. In addition to Clooney, who has done here one of his most popular works, we have Brad Pitt, Bernie Mac, Elliott Gould, Carl Reiner, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia and Julia Roberts among others. Clooney and Pitt stood out for the positive, being able to amuse and to make humor without losing the charm of their characters or overshadowing the colleagues. The story is relatively simple but allows almost all actors to have room to appear. And although I said the story is unlikely, the biggest problem of the script for me was the love trio Clooney-Roberts-Garcia. The idea was good, but it did not work out because Julia Roberts never seemed very willing. The romantic chemistry between her and her two colleagues was zero and I ended up thinking about what the actress really thought she was doing in the movie. Andy Garcia has already made more inspirational performances but was decent enough on his character. The scenarios are very good and realistic, from the safe to the gaming rooms, and the great sights of Las Vegas are truly beautiful and look good on the screen. The soundtrack is great and stays in the ear.

I think the rating of this movie is like some twisted catfishing from like Russia or something. Seriously, IMDb, there is something terribly wrong with your algorithm with the average rating this movie is getting (also when you are looking into the back-end code, fix the iOS app, at this point I'm actually not sure if I hate this movie more then the IMDb app). I honestly feel as if this movie was not only written, directed and edited by an overprivileged kid with a platinum Amex and way too much spare time and too little talent. Not only does it feel like the entire movie is based on someone watching other actual good movies, and then thinking; "Hey, if I mix it all into one movie - awesomeness!". News flash, that's not how it works, people with real talent also have creative integrity..My guess is the people behind the movie saw Ryan Gosling in Drive, and figured, this need a sequel. Obviously, this is not possible and Ryan Gosling said no, so they thought - will make a younger version of it, like a young Ryan..It is somehow like they have watched every Quentin Tarantino movie where this cool, strange, and old school music helps carry the movie. Here, it's just really bad, not in sync and distracting. It is like they have watched every Guy Ritchie movie and loved the odd monologue and then figured, how hard is it to write a quirky monologue, we will save the money and do it ourselves. PLEASE GOD, don't ever do that again! They should so loose their writing privileges. Like if this movie had been tweets, they would have been banned by Twitter for adding too bad content to the platform.. (and look-up how often Twitter ban people form their platform for stupidity..) And then, to add insult to all actors and actresses, not only have they managed to have the absolute worst use of music, and monologue, they have also managed to create the most outrageous cliché characters. You will not believe how horrid they characters are. I've seen telenovelas with more believable characters. The real housewives are more trustworthy. I'm impressed the Debora didn't have a Baby with Baby at the end, really writers, you missed that obvious storyline...Do yourself a favor, just like rub sand in your eyes and listen to your alarm clock instead of watching this movie. PS: For those baffled about the headline to this review, it's a quote from Queen's Brighton Rock, Baby's killer song. That's damn good writing.

This was a particulary stunning summer action movie in a summer mostly filled with silly comedies and pointless dramas. It will certainly have more effect than any other movie this summer, as it is far and away the best sequel opportunity. It practically begs for one. And I honestly hope they do make one, several even, if they're going to be like this.But no film is perfect, and this one's flaw is rather large: The character of Marie/Rogue is constantly being used. Not as a character, but as a plot device. Rogue is a very powerful mutant, and was, before this movie, a very powerful woman. By having a child play her as a victim and something of a weakling at every turn made for a huge drawback. The result was that she, despite being a main, perhaps -the- main character, came off as unrealistic, while all the other actors were excelling.

I went to the premiere of The Nativity Story last night, and found it to be a moving and very real portrayal of the life and times of the era. The characters were believable, the script was true to the biblical story, with enough minor add-ins to flesh out the actors to make you believe that they were actually a young couple having a baby and scared like every other couple out there doing it for the first time, Son of God or not. Herod and his son were wonderfully creepy and paranoid and the other players did their supporting jobs very well to add depth, reality and feeling. If you like epic stories, this one doesn't have the flash and flair of some others that will remain nameless, but it is a lovely re-telling of what Christmas should be about.

I've always thought I had a pretty good sense of humor. I dunno, maybe it's faded away gradually as I've gotten older. Because this opus didn't tweak it at all.Hey, I have no problem with violence, crudity, profanity, sex, and viciously funny satire aimed at everyone possible. Problem is, none of the violence, crudity, profanity and sex worked for me, and the viciously funny satire, well... just wasn't.Full disclosure: half the movie was all I could stand before hitting the EJECT button on the player. I then proceeded downstairs to the shop where I cut the disk in half with a pair of tin snips so there wouldn't be the slightest chance that any other person would ever make the mistake of playing that particular copy. It's most certainly the only time I've ever done THAT.I figure at least there's a spare case if one in the collection wears out. (The jacket blurb went through the shredder.)To everyone else who gave this a one and wish they could've given it a zero, I feel your pain; this is for you:Rocketansky's Rating: Minus Ten

For all you reviewers who ragged this movie, why don't you get off your high horses. Ragging this movie is simply unfair. The movie is not, nor does it represent itself as being anything other than what it is - a low-brow slapstick comedy with goofy characters and an equally goofy story. As such, the movie is not pretentious. If it was, I'd be the first to give it the biggest and messiest ragging because it would deserve it. But if you accept the movie for what it is, then this movie should be spared the jibes that should be directed to those truly awful movies that try to fool the audience into believing that they are watching a quality product when in fact what they are watching is junk. So, my fellow reviewers, stop taking the Dukes so seriously and instead sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie.

I have seen this movie before going to bed. After i'm finished with watching the movie, i couldn't sleep as this made me think.The story is about three characters who are childhood buddies. After 10 minutes, an incident occurs that changes the lives of these three friends. It culminates in Penn murdering Robbins. Then Bacon who is the police officer lets Penn loose instead of arresting him. It is unclear to me whether he understood the fact that Penn murdered Robbins without knowing the fact. They just look at each other without saying anything. The highlight of the film is screenplay and direction by Clint Eastwood. it is unpredictable at times. Finally Clinet Eastwood has achieved excellence in direction dept too. At his age, he is still going strong. May God bless him.

Instant classic. Unparalleled acting with passion, creativity, vigor, hate, love,and regret that has yet to be topped in my personal opinion. Amazing portrayal of cinematic theme from all parties. Hans strikes again (LoL). A once in a lifetime performance from lead cast with heartfelt emotion felt days, months, years after release.

First let me just say that I am not going to spoil any of the plot points of this movie as the director has himself insisted not to and I urge the reviewers to come to respect his wish.Now let me just start by saying the original Blade Runner was one of the most influential sci-fi film to be ever made. Some people may not like it as it is very slow paced and deeply philosophical and I respect their opinion but you cannot deny its legacy. As it so happens Blade Runner 2049 might just fall on the same category. Directed by Denis Villeneuve who directed Incedies, Prisoners(another masterpiece), Arrival, Sicario and Enemy has outdone himself. This is seriously his best film to date. Even though this is a sequel to a movie he wasn't involved in whatsoever he has managed to expand its universe extremely elegantly and marked his directorial trademark in it. I won be surprised if he is put in the same bracket as Kubrick, Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese, Eastwood in the coming years. Talking about greatness we have director of photography propelled by Roger Deakins who already had his hands on Shawshawnk Redemption, No Country for Old Men, Skyfall, The Big Lebowski and Fargo to just name a few and to think he has never won an Oscar despite being nominated 13 times. Well this is about to change this year or you cannot ever take Academy seriously because I strongly believe this is his best work. The way he uses color palette is quite remarkable to watch and it might just be one of the best looking film to ever exist. Acting wise Harrison Ford gives one of his performance in a long time. You can just feel he loved working on this film(unlike that reboot on 2015). I have always been a fan of Ryan Gosling since Drive(another Neo-Noir masterpiece) and after watching this I am convinced that he is one of the best actor working today. Jared Leto gives a another stellar performance as expected from an Academy winner. Dave Bautista, Robin Wright, Ana de Armas all are impressive with their given role. Another thing that made the original Blade Runner so iconic was the soundtrack. And with this film it is no exception. Though this has Hans Zimmer Benjamin Wallfisch collaborating it feels a individual work like the first one. What else can I say? No praise is enough for what I just witnessed. This is one of those films that will inspire people to be filmmakers, that will make people realize why we go to cinemas and spent our hard earned cash, that will continue to put cinemas as art forms. Just go to the biggest theater possible and witness an piece of modern art put on by extremely visionary and talented people. You will not regret it. 10/10

What a sorry excuse of a movie and a waste of 2 hours of my life. Don't get me wrong, I like old movies, from the musicals, to the epics and any well acted movies. I bought the DVD thinking that this was a highly rated classic from the 70s. What it really is actually is a 2 hours borefest with dull acting and practically nothing happening for the first 65-70 mins of the movie. The story revolves around a lonely 26 years old taxi driver that was a loner and outcast and clearly have physcological issues. His ill-conceived atttempts to woo a young women named Betsy backfired and push him finally into mental instability.Then as if suddenly realizing that there is clearly nothing much in both the script and the story line in this sorry excuse for a movie, the Director saw fit to inject the last 10 mins with a meaningless violent bloody gunfight. The entire movie is so meaningless that people must be blind to rate this as a classic.I urge anyone thinking of renting or buying this movie to think twice. Don't throw away 2 hours of your life watching this piece of crap.

Do you want to be scared ? Do you want to be terrified and spent two hours feeling sick ? Do you want to be frightened into sudden familiar horror clichés ? No, this is not the right movie to waste your time for. There is only a crime story and a woman who can feel the dead. The murderers have common motive and the departed end up as usual in their final state. There is nothing unexplainable or supernatural but the girl's ability to see not only the dead corpses but their dark dissipating fragile shapes. Their images are flawless and she is their hope, they do not want to harm her, they are seeking relief. The sense of danger is perpetual and horror comes easily in perfect visuals, radiant colors and impressive theatrical scenery, but you lay back in your chair and enjoy a masterpiece rather than a movie designed to shock or cause fear and disgust. This Guillermo del Toro's work of art should be placed to the top rank of all horror – thriller movies and considered a reference value for anything relative has been already directed.

Darren Arnofsky (Requiem for a Dream) comes back with a powerful drama, driven by great performance comeback by Mickey Rourke and takes a deeper look behind the scenes of the wrestling show at the American society, its family models, everyday life in the little towns and the difficult path of an extraordinary yet representing 'every man' individual - who once on top, is now struggling with hard reality out of the ring...What's the price of life without glory? Is there a place for friendship, love, lust, happiness or security... or maybe there is no place for life at all...? Can one remain the same for the whole life or there is a need to adapt or re-adapt? With Ram - the main character, we question throughout the film different aspects of human condition, individual struggle to find the true meanings...Great job of the cinematographer Maryse Alberti, often following the hero from behind - like in a documentary movie... simple but very powerful way of story telling... Must see!

This movie is vastly overrated to say the least. Sure, it's a good summer movie - but that is all (don't believe the IMDb score). It's a summer action movie at the right time without competition, that's why it's a box office smash hit (nobody goes to see Troy anymore) - not on movie merits. If you don't believe me yet at how overrated this flick is; look at the votes. 50% of voters has given this movie a 10. A 10! Imo it's more of a 6 or a week 7 (I gave it a 6) and here's why.This is more of a drama then an action movie and some scenes are really drawn out. "What?!! You just want brainless action!" I hear the Spiderman fans screaming from the top of their lungs. "No.", I reply calmly, "I don't". But when you want some sort of drama or a strongly emotional driven storybase (or what not) you need, imo, at least 2 things.1) A good script. This is not it, no matter what you say. The script is very poor by all means and I'm not reacting to the liberties taken over the spiderman story (and some things are really out there), it's just not a very good script by any standards. The tempo and wrapup of the movie is really strange aswell (but that's the editings and / or directors fault).2) Good acting. And this is not it again. Tobey Maguire surprised me with how poorly he acted in this movie - looked mostly like he was wandering about being sleepy all of the time without any emotions to show for his life. Kirsten Dunst never was (or will be) a good actress. Alfred Molina? Hah. It feels like they're trying to make the movie as cheap as they can, what a poor substitute he is for the great Dafoe in the first movie. In fact, the best acting by far is that of James Franco and he only has a small part (he truelly shines).The effects are still mediocre at best aswell (Harry Potter 3's are outstanding) and cleary compatriot. There isn't any excuse for it either this time around since the first Spiderman movie pulled in as much cash as it did. No, simply put this is a good movie; but not great by any means. no matter how hard people try to project on you that it's "innovative" cause of the emotion overload (poorly executed) they try to fill it with.

At last! It felt like it would never come but like the old saying "Never say never". I grew up with Jurassic Park and Dinosaurs were a huge part of my life.And after hearing the news in late 2014 that my wish was finally coming true it is just thrill me that after Fourteen years Jurassic was returning. Under the new title Jurassic World but watching the film you will understand why it is called Jurassic World. What makes the movie even better was seeing it with family, I saw Jurassic World early this morning in theaters with my older brother my two younger nieces and my dad it's always better to go to the movies with those you enjoy seeing movies with and it was worth the ticket to go see Jurassic World in a jammed packed theater. I'm not kidding it was full to the max only a few seat were able to get to. It is also one of the best movie thrill rides you have seen in a long time. Now I want to make something understandable I want everyone to go see this movie and it will be as spoiler free as possible for this review It was the vision that John Hammond wanted for Jurassic Park and it became a real theme park on the island where it all begin 20 years before on Isla Nublar. We are also given a new cast of characters and actors. We have Owen Grady played by Chris Pratt who has become one of my favorite actors lately and he was very good in this film as the main protagonist when I learn he was cast in the role I felt we were in good hands with him as the leading actor you could tell he enjoy every bit of the movie and he got to use some clever punch lines. Claire Dearing played by Bryce Dallas Howard who does a good job in this film as she plays the Park's Operations manager and she gets the VIP passes to her nephews Zach and Gray Mitchell played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins. They are given a interesting story as their parents Karen and Scott played by Judy Greer and Andy Buckley are the ones who send them to Jurassic World to visit their aunt. Also Vi Hoskins played by Vincent D'Onofrio Head of Security operations for InGen right from the start you can tell this guy was going to be trouble, Barry played by Omar Sky who helps Owen with the rapports, Lowery Cruthers played by Jake Johnson and Vivian played by Lauren Lapkus are also new to the movie the only actor from the films to return is B.D.Wong who reprise his role as Dr.Henry Wu and he serves a lot more to the plot as you will discover.Also a lot of the old favorite Dinosaurs are back, we get Stegosauurs, Apatosaurus, Ankylosaurus,Pterandon, Triceratops,Velociraptors, and Tyrannosaurus Rex we are also introduce to Monsasauraus and the movie main Dinosaur Antagonist Indominus Rex and this is the hybrid dinosaur the only way to give this animal justice is to go watch it on the big screen she is a real predator. Jurassic World also gives you that nostalgia feel because the music the look of the dinosaurs and the fact it takes place on the same island it just awesome rush plus listening to the music of the film as it plays the themes we know and love about Jurassic Park It made me smile listening to the songs.Also they used animatronics for the dinosaurs because that is how the series started with and it is a respective tribute to the filmsThe cast gave us a very good performance as you watch the film you can tell they each love Jurassic Park and wanted to honor what had made it so great. I along with everyone in the theater appreciate what the cast did for those of us who love the series.Just watching the Dinosaurs on the big screen again was super awesome and they were so cool to see come back to life on the screen they did a good job as they always do with the performance of each DinosaurJurassic World in my opinion really deliver and hit this one way out of the park after waiting for so long it was excellent to see Jurassic World on the big screen One of the few movies I can remember where everyone in the theater gave a movie a round of applause. If you love Dinosaurs and Jurassic Park then you must go see Jurassic World and spare no expenseWith a good cast, tense action and the return of the Dinosaurs you will have to see it twice to take it all inI give Jurassic World an 10 out of 10!

X-Men is one of Marvel's oldest superhero teams, launched in the early 1960's. A comic interpretation of a ethnic or racial group that is met with bigotry, hatred and intolerance, X-Men continued Marvel's tradition of featuring heroes that were decidedly more down to earth than their DC Comics brethren. It took years of development to bring the mutant superheroes to the big screen, but it was finally tackled by director Bryan Singer, who made a big splash with his sleeper cult hit, The Usual Suspects. As realized by Singer and his screenwriter collaborators Tom DeSanto and David Hayter, X-Men would bring comic book adaptations into a more realistic world than the ones that Batman had played in in the 1990s, and successfully launch Marvel comics into a string of strong adaptations that continues to this day.In the universe the X-Men inhabit, small numbers of humans have begun to show evolutionary mutations. Some of these mutations manifest themselves in the form of physical deformities, such as different skin coloring, scales or extreme sizes. Others appear normal, but possess powers that make them superhuman such as extreme healing abilities, control of temperature and the weather, and walking through solid objects. Normal humans view the mutants with fear and trepidation, shunning them and forcing mutants to live in hiding and with shame. As X-Men opens, we are shown a flashback scene in which young mutant Eric Lensherr, aka Magneto, reveals his powers to control metal objects when he is separated from his parents at a German concentration camp during World War II. When he grows up, his experience with intolerance at the hands of the Germans has ingrained in him a strong distrust for human society in general. When crusading Senator Kelley (Bruce Davison) decides to introduce the Mutant Registration Act, which would force all mutants to be identified by the government, Magneto (played as an adult by Ian McKellan) has determined that no mutant will ever be marked as he was as a child and plans to fight back.Simultaneously, a young teenage girl, Marie, aka Rogue (Anna Paquin), has just discovered her power, which is to take the life energy out of any person she touches. This revelation comes to her when she first kisses her boyfriend, leaving him in a coma. Fearful of her powers, she runs away from home and in a small town in Canada discovers a fellow mutant, loner Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). Wolverine has advanced healing abilities, and is also equipped with a skeleton covered in a material called Adamantium, a metal that is indestructible, along with three sharp claws imbedded in his hands that he can unleash at a moments notice. Rogue and Wolverine are attacked by mutants working for Magneto and are saved by the X-Men, the name of a team of elite mutants that have been trained to use their powers for good by Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) who founded a school for mutants in New York. The key members of the X-Men are Cyclops (James Marsters), who can shoot energy beams from his eyes, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) who has telekinetic powers and Storm (Halle Berry) who can control the weather. Professor Xavier believes that Magneto wants Wolverine for some purpose, so he is determined to hide him at all costs and prevent a plan Magneto has to convert normal humans into mutants.X-Men is very much an allegorical story, depicting man's intolerance to that which he finds different. This gives X-Men a dramatic strength many other comic book stories lack, which are often a bit too wrapped up in their fantasy material. Singer and crew have made a good decision to ground X-Men in, essentially, the real world. New York is New York, there are the references to the Holocaust which provides a good basis for Magneto's hatred and the characters are smart enough to find the trappings of the comic book world they are in a bit ridiculous (In one scene, as the X-Men introduce themselves to Wolverine with their code names, he snickers and says "This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.").On the character front, X-Men does suffer a bit from an overload of characters. Storm, Professor Xavier and Magneto's henchmen suffer from lack of development because there just isn't enough screen time for everybody. On the flip side, Wolverine, Rogue and Magneto are fleshed out to a decent degree, allowing us to become familiar with them and involved in their story. This imbalance of character development would haunt the future X-Men sequels as well.X-Men was a film that had the potential to be a budget buster, so some care was taken to not overload the film with visual effects and as a result, X-Men looks a little low budget and underwhelming compared to it's bigger budget successors. The action sequences are kept to a minimum, but the film is not completely lacking in it's quota of fisticuffs. The special effects are decent, but noticeably restrained, so as to keep the film in check. In some ways, this restraint is almost better, as it allows X-Men to look to something other than eye candy to fill it's running time, leaving more room for the issues and characters.X-Men would prove to be a popular comic book translation and Marvel used it to launch itself into superstardom after that, following up with Spider-Man two years later. While it has some flaws, X-Men is a good entry in the genre and one that set the tone for good adaptations to follow.

I have not seen any of the animated or live-action films that were called "Alice In Wonderland" or "Alice goes to Wonderland" or "Wonderland In Alice".I honestly don't have an urge to.But I'm glad I saw this movie.It isn't quite as good as "Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry", another Tim Burton movie starring Johney Depp, but it's great entertainment nonetheless.What can't escape my thought is why this movie is getting bad reviews.well, the movie's been doing good at the Box office so far and it's making a lot of money, but the reviews on this website are really starting to make me wonder if people have just lost their edge.Really, don't you people think that your being a little harsh.What's not to like about this movie? So it's not a masterpiece, but it's still a pretty good film.I will admit that it's not near as good as "C&TCF", but c'mon, it's not bad or anything.I'm giving "Alice In Wonderland" an 8.5 out of 10.That's just me.Don't judge me.Don't insult me.Just let me be.

This reboot of the X-Men franchise is completely different compared to the original trilogy, which I enjoyed until the third one. This X-Men movie has to be ranked as not only the best X-Men movie, but as one of the most underrated Superhero movies of all-time.There is a massive human element to the film which I found different from all of the other X-Men movies and this is conveyed through the wonderful acting skills of the whole cast. The two lead actors, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender have great on screen chemistry. Particularly Fassbender's performance of the broken Erik Lehnsherr before he becomes Magneto. Kevin Bacon is great as Sebastian Shaw, and he has the villain down to a tee. Jennifer Lawrence is perfect for the role of Raven, as she plays her in a troubled way, she just wants to be normal and not embrace her mutant self.One of the aspects that make this movie enjoyable other than the acting is the Direction and the Music. Matthew Vaughn convey's a lot of emotion in his shots and this emotion is backed up with a fabulous musical score that helps to add to the mood.This movie is fantastic and everything about it is near perfect and that is what makes it such an enjoyable movie, and one of the most underrated superhero movies of all time.

lots of bodies, should be this films title. Scorsese is at his best doing movies where the villain is more fun than the main characters. Nicholson shines in this film. His glowing hallow around Nicholson makes moderate performances by the other actors playing mob guys look excellent. Tony Sirrico and Gandolfini (Sopranos) act as if they are mobsters, the guys in this film "not so much". In fact in a couple of scenes they looked bored in the background. Scorsese doesn't spend much time worrying about his background players and it shows. Many scenes where an extra actor could add something to the scene. They Bump On A Log. I believe it is an east coast acting theme that believes heroes, major characters, should only be the ones on camera. I did not like Snakes On A Plane however, the director had a moving grooving set, with lots to look at both foreground and background. I found Martin Sheen, Baldwin, and Wahlberg's performances trumped Damon's performance by a long shot. Di Caprio stole this movie. He was unrelenting, viciously psychopathic and yet tender at times. The best scene is in the porno theater when he is listening. He did not take the easy way out by just sitting there, no Di Caprio outdid both Nicholson and Damon in a scene where he's just sitting there. Wahlberg, plays his character, as a vicious jerk, which seems overplayed. However, Scorsese, plays the viewer for the fool when he, the unemployed cop, kills a rat in the end. Excellent film because Di Caprio, Sheen and Wahlberg tugged out Oscar Winning Performances from what can be played as a mobster movie. Nicholson was a perverted mobster which I felt did not do the character justice and Damon adequately weaselly did an OK job.

Snow White and the Huntsman is another adaptation of the tale of the Brothers Grimm , the film is directed by Rupert Sanders , the cast is very interesting , Kristen Stewart does not compromise the film, she is acceptable , Chris Hemsworth does a reasonable performance , Charlize Theron is the better film, makes good performance , you actually see that it is evil, it is a lot of significant , there has in the cast, Sam Claflin , Sam Spruell , Ian McShane and others, the picture of the film is good , the somber tone works , especially in the scene in the forest, the script is a bit confusing , it is well paced , the action scenes are good , the soundtrack is average , the costume is very good, the edition is good, and the pace of the film is acceptable , Snow White and the Huntsman is a cool movie , has good scenes , a good cast , even with a bit dragged screenplay , and some good performances affected . Note 6.7

First off, if you're a fan of westerns, then yes, go see it. But if you're expecting something profound, aw-striking, and downright genius, then look to the west someplace else.I love Costner (both acting and as a filmmaker) but this one really was a slump in his career. You don't get that nostalgia like you got watching Dances With Wolves, and having Duvall as his "freegrazer" partner really doesn't bring anything new to the table.I feel it was definitely studio controlled or that Costner didn't put his whole heart into it like his other films. Action is null, the romantic tension between Costner and Bening isn't so fantastic, and the rough guy attitude isn't all there (even with the villains). I give this puppy a six, not for Costner, but for the western genre.

Though familiar with the story on which the film was based, I was lost on several occasions or merely lost interest in the plot line. Use of unintelligible dialogue only served to confuse the telling of the story and the fleshing out of the characters and their motivation. The various British dialects, faked or otherwise, did not help with the Viking characters actual or mythological.The film does not compare favourably with the 2005 live action story "Beowulf and Grendel" filmed in Iceland. The animation/graphics were innovative but it got stale quite fast. I guess I expected more especially from a rather stellar cast like Anthony Hopkins, Ray Winston and even Angelina Jolie. Could have been better all round!!

Greetings from Lithuania."The Other Woman" (2014) is my pick for the worst picture of 2014. Is really bad stuff. Nothing works in this "comedy" - it's not funny, not a single real laugh through a whole movie. Acting was just lame, ye, i know, this is comedy but lame is lame, no matter what genre it is. Kate Upton, well, she was in this just for looks, and only for looks, she's super cute, but acting, lets just say is not her strongest side. So what else? Nothing. Absuolutely nothing. The only reason i saw this film is because of the director Nick Cassavetes, which has made some really good pictures ("The Notebook" 2004; "My Sister's Keeper" 2009). But these where good romantic / dramas, and "The Other Woman" is a absolute disaster to compare. Overall, if you have nothing else to watch, go and read some book - trust me it's better way to spend your time rather than watching this piece of garbage.

it's a shame so many people spent their time running their mouths rather than watching the movie. The story isn't new (what story is?) but its' well done, BIG color, BIG scenes,a touch of serious, a touch of humor, clear cut good guy, clear cut BAD guys with a few "grey guys" thrown in the middle. Costner is always a variable. When the right script hits, no one is better, otherwise it's pretty much a monotone. FORTUNATELY, this is the kind of script where the dead pan, monosyllabic Good Guy works just fine. It's a shame the "experts" (i.e. the critics who create nothing) trashed this one. Even if it were the worst movie ever made, Costner would have been contributing more the "creative world" than ANY critic will in their entire lives. geoff beneze

Much better than the usual teen-sex-glitz-farce. I watched the unrated version of "American Pie" on DVD the same week I also watched "10 Things I Hate About You," and the contrast between the two was clear. Both movies are a little gross for some tastes, and probably will concern or even offend a portion of the population. But beyond that kind of knee-jerk "tut-tutting" in the media there is a very good reason to enjoy "American Pie": It's a very good movie.I avoided "American Pie" in the theaters because the trailers and the reviewers focused on the "hi-jinx" aspect-- clumsy, self-absorbed boys running amuck while trying to satisfy their physical urges without regard to any higher values such as love, relationship, appreciation of their fellow human beings, etc. At the urging of my parents, however, I watched the DVD, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie indeed had a heart. As well as a bunch of crude, funny material-- solid comedy.Without revealing the outcomes of the "plot"-- let me just say that the characters undergo a believable redemption and maturing that would be a high point in any "chick movie." I hesitate to give praise here at others' expense, yet I think it is important to note the vivid contrast of this fine and good hearted movie with another teen sex flick: "10 Things I Hate About You," which was released about the same time. "10 Things...," as with so many movies in this genre, was mean, low-spirited, and viciously hostile. It was an insult to the audience, especially in its vulgar depiction of adolescent boys as perverts and buffoons, and adolescent girls as greedy, ego driven bitches. That's bad! It perverted what is otherwise a normal part of human life-- wholesome, randy good humor."American Pie" has a good heart, and a good eye. See it and laugh, but don't be surprised if you also get a tiny bit edified at the same time. Oh-- the commentary track on the DVD is also great-- The director, the writer, I think, and several of the actors all appear together with spirited good humor and genuinely informative info-- that alone is worth the DVD price!

I've been waiting for this movie, ever since I saw it go into Green Light back in 1998. I read in Empire magazine the film was in the works, and who was the lead back then? None other than Sarah Michelle Gellar. Although it wasn't confirmed, I was thrilled to read the basic plot, as my brother got me playing the video games not long before I read the article.The film itself has connections to the game, but you don't need to play them all to understand it. The cast, which actually is made up of a few Brits, become likeable. Those who make it through the first 30 mins anyway. The few who meet their end in the laser hallway don't really have much dialogue, so it's not loss seeing them die. Milla (a good-looking actress, yet to prove she's anything more to me) is clearly totty for the lads. Lets face it, who on Earth wears a slinky dress like that when planning to stay in for the night!? Does she feel the cold?I didn't quite follow the absence of Jill Valentine, and instead the choice of naming the lead Alice... I may have missed something in the games there. I'll admit, I'm no whizz at playing them and staying alive.Back to the film. I found the zombie scenes pretty tense. Although it doesn't take much to get me biting my nails, you do want a few of the cast to live through the film, so the action scenes were both entertaining and scary. the scenes with the zombie dogs were great. Michelle Rodriguez and Martin Crewes aren't on their best form here, but I still liked their characters. Both their deaths come as a surprise. Arguably, Rodriguez's zombie-turn sucks. I wanted her to get through it all, but her death was cool. I wasn't overly keen on Eric Mabius. He's pretty wooden throughout the movie, and I wasn't too bothered if he was killed, or not. Although I am looking forward to the outcome of his bizzare arm incident in the sequel.The licker showdown at the end provides a few tense moments. It's not right to say the thing didn't look real, or convincing, because this is a film about zombies... I have no idea what the licker was all about, or if it is a reference to the games, but it keeps the action going when the crew are rid of zombies. Just as everyone is out fine, the thing appears and sees off one of the crew, while another turns into a zombie. The ending was slightly perky for a moment, so the re-appearance of the monster and two deaths is my kind of ending.The actual ending, with the Manson theme is excellent. From what I know, the ending was something similar to the opening in one of the Resident Evil video games. (I could really do with a trivia site to explain the links, or gaps between the film and the game. I get the feeling I haven't played all the Resident Evil games....)Generally I'm not too sure I'd tell anyone to see this. Some people aren't too keen on, or convinced by the whole zombie theme, or find action scenes annoying and loud, but I enjoyed the entire film. As for the kids who play the games.. (be honest, people younger than 15, or R-rated, I think it is in the States, play the video games) they'd probably love all the action. Like Tomb Raider, they might get bored with all the banter and explanations, but they'd get a kick from it... 9/10 from me.