reference_files/paragraph-validation.movies.txt

I have to say I loved this film. Principally, because I empathised so much with Hawke's character that I spent at least the first hour of the film trying to make excuses for Washington's character's behaviour. Perhaps I am just slow or naive, but I genuinely could not decide whether Washington was good or evil or just human in this film until the last half hour or so, when it becomes very obvious. I was sitting there debating with myself; is that truly the only way to approach this? Is there no other? I study Criminology and as such, the film was fascinating. I make no pretence that it was a particularly deep or thought-provoking film, only that it did address issues that I am interested in.I fully admit that I am no expert on crime on the streets of L.A. and so I make no judgement about how realistic this film was, except to say that while probably overdramatised, the issues raised are extremely relevant and far more common that you might believe. 
This movie is one amazing feat.  Aside from the insanity that was involved during the making of this film, the movie looks amazing.  Each scene is memorable and filmed with such expertise.  The DVD version looks great in  the widescreen format.  The extras are nice, but what is really great is  the movie itself.  One of the most powerful films ever made, it is also one  that is a marvel to watch again and again.  Please buy it. 
Don't get me wrong this is a great show and the boys are in fine form. Trent Reznor damn near makes your ears bleed and the sound and picture quality is awesome. Filmed during the North American tour in 2006 it's also complete in terms of its song selection and the price is reasonable. However if you're looking for some insight into the band, interviews or backstage footage it just isn't here. The concert has also been filmed from a distance which wasn't really what I had in mind when I bought this. Instead of actually seeing Trent, Josh, Alessandro or Jordie performing  for most of the DVD you get a really long shot of a small blurry person on stage and a bunch of waving arms and heads covering the bottom half of the TV screen. Occasionally someone will crowd surf past obscuring things even more. The picture quality although great is dark, grainy and smoky. Towards the end of the concert a giant gauze screen comes down and covers the stage entirely then we get to see pictures of amoebas, random animals and world atrocities but again No Band.The extras aren't much better in terms of insight just footage of the band rehearsing in 2005; Everyday Is Exactly The Same and Love Is Not Enough. We also get a couple of music videos; The Hand That Feeds and Only and a stills gallery shot during the performance.Unless you're a die-hard fan I'm sorry but I can't really recommend this and I know you'll hate me for it. But I bought this hoping to at least see the band perform or possibly speak during an interview or random backstage moment I didn't expect to once again feel like I've got a bad seat to the show. I've already seen the crowd shots, outstretched arms and tiny man on stage. Maybe we just aren't meant to get close to NIN, maybe they are an enigma. 
First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin.  The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it. 
I think this movie was introduced in the Arts. Not a popular one. but its so well done and quirky and funny and the scenery is amazing. I will watch it again. The father of a 40 year old man goes to France to pick up his sons body, who died from a hiking accident. you see him in flash backs. by the real father and son actors Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. He decides to walk the trail his son died on carrying his ashes and scattering them along the way. He meets up with a chain smoker strange lady, a writer with writers block and 2 others that share the trail with him off and on through out the movie. Its so funny and fun to watch. very well acted by all. I think you will like this movie. I do not recommend it for kids. A stroll though France and Spain. if for nothing else see it for the scenery. You wont be sorry. 
About a month ago I bought a Samsung UN75F7100 3D LED TV set. About 2 weeks ago I bought an OPPO BDP-103 3D Blu-Ray player on Amazon. Of course, I didn't have any 3D Blu-Ray disks to play so I bought Avatar. Wow! If you got the equipment to play this you gotta' get it. Picture and sound quality are excellent and the 3D is only as good as a movie originally shot in 3D could be. I'm afraid that any other move shot in 2D and processed up to 3D will not stand up to this one. Oh. By the way. I thought the movie was great! Hope there will be a sequel. (In 3D of course.) 
From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film.  I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there.  Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one.  I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start.  You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves.  What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake?  And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like.  "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered.  Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here.  I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing.  Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact.  It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus.  As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah.  Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter.  I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end.  There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal.  I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though.  The music, though, was awful.  I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie.  The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part.  There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to.  There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here.  There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times.  There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie.  It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance.  Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed. 
You would expect more out of Academy Award winning, Peter Jackson. But it seems we were expecting too much. The film is visually stunning. It's worth seeing just for that reason. But the overall film suffers in many areas, resulting in a mediocre remake.First of all, the casting was bad. Often the actors are very out of place in their roles, even though they give good performances. Some of the selections are very peculiar, Jack Black for instance. Very strange, although he is quite good in his role.It has some memorable moments, but the majority of the film is boring and pointless. It seems Jackson feels the need to make every movie as long as possible, and the film really suffers because of this. Even with the strange casting, the film still could have been great. The length is what really knocks it down a level. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a 3 hour long movie as much as anyone else, but the extra length was pointless. It didn't add anything to the movie.As I said before, it's worth a watch for the special effects. Just don't go in expecting an amazing film.Rating: 2 1/2 StarsThank you for your time. 
Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?"Chicago" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing.Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show."Chicago", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song "Class", an audio commentary and a commerical of a "Behind-the-Scenes" look.Now, we finally get a THREE disc "Chicago" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs "Me and My Baby" and "My Own Best Friend."I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film! 
I specially liked the interesting twist to the legend of King Arthur. Good effort to add more "facts" to the script, particularly regarding the origin of knights, King Arthur and other characters of Arthurian legends, including Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere (Percival is badly missing here though). Some of this ideas has been somehow treated more recently in movies such as "The last legion". I liked the excellent depiction of saxon invaders and the effort to fit the whole story with the historical anglo-saxon invasions to British Isles. Finally, the movie has a good pace, great battle scenes, good photography, and a nice soundtrack.The bad things include the acting of Clive Owen and too much "freedom" exclamations, the "battle horse" of nowadays arguments to justify invasions all over the planet..., but you can easily skip that garbage. Finally, stop the the movie at about 4 min before ending and view the alternate ending provided on the extras. Even so, you will appreciate how Hollywood directors do not learn how to end movies.In short, King Arthur went beyond the expectations of somone whose favorite King Arthur movie still remains John Boorman's Excalibur. Plus, a good deal for the price. 
Every episode is interesting. Creative characters, and very addictive series.Looking forward to Season 3!As far as rating Amazon Video goes, what a great service. I hope that Amazon Prime customers always have this because it's wonderful. 
This set collects some of the best shows to air on television.  The set also comes with funky retro packaging that would make any self-respecting geek drool in a way that will insure their being single until the next season of Star Trek is released (giving them more time to enjoy this collection).  Sadly, Paramount is squeezing us Trekkies/Trekkers/Addicts like members of the mob would squeeze an inner-city grocery-store, with their outrageous prices.  $85.00 AFTER a 35% discount?  Ironic, being that in the show they're selling, money is no longer used.  Another thing that's bugged me in ALL the Trek DVD sets is the horrendous chapter break that happens after opening credits.  It jumps you about five minutes into the actual episode.  There is no way to skip the credit sequence, without missing a good chunk of the show.  Sure, it's fun the first 135 you narrate along with Captain Kirk talking about the Final Frontier, but it gets old by the 140th session, unless you really start adding variety by sucking in a balloon full of helium before speaking the words William ... Shatner ... reads ... with ... such ... high ... melodrama.  The picture quality is decent.  Probably not what you'd expect for the price.  Paramount didn't send in a restoration team to make this look as pretty as something released today should.  You know something wasn't done right with this set when these shows from the 60s look WORSE than Chaplin movies from the 20s do, in the Chaplin Collection (now THAT'S restoration).  What makes this worth the purchase are the compelling stories, great chemistry between the cast, nifty mini-skirts, cheesy alien outfits and finally getting to own the original episodes on DVD.  Is that worth $85.00, when you can still watch any of these shows for free on television?  It's your call.  At these prices, I've only purchased season 3, 4 and 5 of The Next Generation and this set of The Original Series.  I've rented each season of Deep Space Nine (at a more reasonable price, I would have bought them) and stopped, pointed and laughed wildly at the first three seasons of Voyager, whenever I pass them in the store.  You make the call and make sure you make the right one, because the execs at Paramount would just assume stomp a Tribble with bare feet than they would issue you a refund because you feel ripped-off, after opening the set and realizing you're basically getting a sort of washed-out collection of episodes in neat packaging and nothing more (the extras are weak).5 stars for the shows.  2 stars for the value.  3 stars overall. 
Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the "supposive" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that "gay" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy "so" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film. 
This is without a doubt the best feature film anime around.  All the action and suspense you come to expect in this genre.  The storyline is intriguing, to say the least.  You will not regret getting this movie,  watching it numerous times. 
Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. 
I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it.  I didn't even know it was based on a video game.  I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.  The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style.  The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world.  Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film.  Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination. 
A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show.  Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent.  All the episodes are funny.  Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens).  All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts. 
BATMAN (1989) is the one Tim Burton film where his directorial style worked in perfect synergy with mainstream Hollywood. Many of his other earlier films, including BEETLEJUICE (1988), EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1993), ED WOOD (1994), and ironically BATMAN RETURNS (1992) are 100% TIM BURTON! They are all great in that Burtonesque way. While Burton's first Batman film BATMAN has obvious Burton touches: odd and disturbing characters, dark tone, neo-noirish look, the film still manages to be generally accessible to the mass audience. It moves at a fast, breezy pace and has an epic, Hollywood feel to it, with a satisfying conclusion. But that, in this case, is not a bad thing! I have re-watched this entertaining flick so many times it isn't funny! It just works. Can't say that for many of the superhero films in this new PC, uninspired generation of films.I actually saw BATMAN (1989) when it first came out in movie theatres and was blown away by it's originality and scope...still am. Even more so now since it holds up 20+ years later as great entertainment. In retrospect, Michael Keaton was the perfect choice to play the fractured, flawed antiheroic Bruce Wayne AKA Batman. But I always felt he was the right choice! Keaton captures the guarded loneliness of the Bruce Wayne character, while still being very convincing as a tough guy who can hold his own when donning the cape and cowl! Mr. Burton...you made the right choice!The other inspired (and perhaps more obvious) choice was casting the legendary Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier AKA The Joker. Nicholson is convincing as high-level "yes man" thug Napier who through a nasty accident becomes facially scarred and assumes the Joker persona. And Nicholson really looks like The Joker in this! He has so many memorable lines that I think about all the time. The hero-villain chemistry between he and Keaton is electric.Kim Basinger (at her most gorgeous!) admirably plays nosy photojournalist Vicki Vale, who arrives in Gotham City to unlock the secret of the mysterious Caped Crusader who has been "terrorizing" low level criminals throughout the city. She ends up falling in love with Bruce Wayne (lucky bastard!). Basinger is the weakest link of the main actors, but she still does a good job of emoting, being simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by Batman and Joker's antics. She screams a lot, but look at the freaks she's dealing with! Can you blame her?The solid supporting cast includes Michael Gough (wonderful turn as Alfred, Bruce's ever-so-reliable and dependable butler and caretaker), Robert Wuhl (in an energetic turn as Vicki's fellow reporter Alex Knox), Billy Dee Williams (as DA Harvey Dent), and Pat Hingle (as world-weary Police Commissioner Gordon). In particular, Keaton and Gough have an effortless chemistry as though they have been close their whole lives. Gough came back for Schumacher's cartoonish campy films and he had none of the chemistry with either Kilmer or Clooney that he had with Keaton in the Burton ones. It was weird watching Gough's Alfred interact with those tepid versions of Bruce Wayne.As previously stated, I am amazed at how Burton's style fused perfectly with more conventional Hollywood touches and created something special out of it. It could have been a monumental failure, but instead ended up being a template for all future superhero films. 
C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest. 
There have been a lot of half-crazed movie characters in film history, you know the one; the kind of vaguely insane person that the movie truly revolves around, with the other characters only there to provide stark contrast with their recognizably sane posture.  They're also there to wonder aloud to themselves and each other, "What's the matter with him?"  To which someone usually responds, "I don't know, but there's something about him that I like."  The thing about those movies (a lot of them came out of the 80's and early 90's, I know because in school we all imitated them), was the the core of those movies was the zany character exploration, and that was just about it.  See what kind of situations we can cook up and then throw this crazed, witty personae in there and see what happens.What's different about Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jack Sparrow in particular, is that the world he inhabits gave birth to him.  In the crazed personae movie--the nut-job seems to come out of nowhere, completely unexpected, which is half the fun but also half the shortcoming.  In Pirates of the Carribean, we expect Jack Sparrow to come sailing out of the horizon and to suddenly arrive in that world, and what a world!I think what lends Sparrow such credibility is his mixture of characterization.  Yes, he's wild and I suppose "free," but there are moments where he gets serious (saluting the dead pirates), moments when he has to act and can pull through (like jumping in to save Elizabeth), moments where he has to educate (telling Will Turner the truth about his father).  When this happens, we give the character Sparrow something we don't give the hollow, crazed personae; respect.  Give Johnny Depp all the credit for being able to switch between these modes as well; being serious and respectable while maintaining the aura of Jack Sparrow; that he'll stick his tongue out at us and run off with the gold at any moment, but not without his effects.The world of "Black Pearl" is lush and surprising.  I didn't expect to believe the world of pirates, where all the exsists is ocean and the few ports that you can sail to.  Come to think of it, we only really see three locales during the whole movie, and the rest of it is on water.  How'd they pull that off?  My favorite scene is in the pirate pub where the bar-fight is perpetual; Jack Sparrow and his cohort (can't remember his name) sit and talk about ports, treasures, old pirates, schemes, boats, etc. all in the warm glow of candles and wood as they chug ale.  A pirate's life for me!Geoffery Rush, brilliant as ever.  When he says, "Too long have I been without the taste of food or the comfort of a woman" I believe him.  The man is a pirate outright, but in his eyes you can see the years of torment on a man from the curse piling up on him slowly.  Notice too how he rolls his eyes perfectly when he's at the moment of breaking the curse, and somehow Jack Sparrow convinces him not to.  How?  Maybe "Curse of the Black Pearl" is really how Jack Sparrow has dogged Barbossa his whole career.The supporting cast is good, even Orlando Bloom who is still in Legolas mode.  Even though he played up Will Turner nicely as a bright-eyed, talented, somewhat intense young man (who has serious anxieties about his lineage, but why not?  It would bar him from his chances of Elizabeth), I did keep expecting him to jump up and go, "He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn!"  He does have a great moment where he jumps onto a ship with Sparrow and goes, "Aye, avast!" to which he's promptly laughed at. 
I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good. 
If that's even possible.  I loved the first one, and I was absolutely in love with this one even more!  Wolverine and Nightcrawler are probably my favorite characters, both in the movie, and in the comics.  So the fact that this one had Nightcrawler made me extremely happy.  The story in this one is even better, the action is more intense and exciting, and the effects are brilliant!  Nightcrawler's ability looks absolutely real, you actually believe that he's teleporting, and it looks awesome.  Great great movie.  The only sore spot, if any, is Halle Berry.....I've never liked her, but luckily she's not in this one much, and I've heard rumours that she's not in the next one at all.  Fine by me! 
There are two things I love: pirates and Johnny Depp.  Putting those two together is a dream come true.  And to have Depp play a pirate is even better.  I loved Pirates of the Caribbean.  This entertaining action-adventure film is a roller coaster ride of action-packed scenes and a feast for the eyes as well.  Set in eighteenth century, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl tells the story of Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and the governor's daughter Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) and their adventures after they encounter the rather bizarre and enigmatic Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp).  Jack wants to find the ship Black Pearl and his nemesis, Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and settle an old score.  But Barbossa has his own plans -- he wants to reverse an old spell that has left him and the other borders of the Black Pearl living as immortals that keeps them from enjoying the simple pleasures of life (like eating, drinking, etc.).  This puts Elizabeth in danger and Will Turner will be there to rescue her, but in doing so he discovers a few things about himself.I had my doubts about this film at first because... well, it's a movie inspired by a theme park ride, for crying out loud.  But since I love Johnny Depp and all things that are remotely set in a different time frame, I decided to give it a whirl.  This film is such a fun treat!  Both children and adults could enjoy it and the special effects are wonderful.  I love the cast, especially Depp and Bloom.  Johnny Depp is gorgeous (even in over the top pirate regalia) and so talented.  He's a chameleonic actor who once again showcases his abilities to portray a character flawlessly.  Orlando Bloom is another gorgeous specimen and I enjoyed him a whole lot.  The weakest link to me is Keira Knightley, but fortunately the story doesn't completely revolve around her character.  The supporting cast, namely Jack Davenport, is also great.  I loved this action/adventure flick and I look forward to watching the sequel. 
The show is interesting, with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest.  What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD.  I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered.  The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder.  I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard.  Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails.  It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging.The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating.  Monroe is my favorite character by far so far. 
I never knew I could love a superhero movie so much. What made this film great was its action, story, and great characters with came together to form a near-perfect film. Usually I don't understand superhero movies; I watched all three Spider-Man movies and I still don't understand, I didn't get the second X-Men movie, and I didn't like Fantastic 4. But The Dark Knight takes a different approach for all movie goers. It's easy to understand (Usually I need a superhero guru of knowledge to explain things to me), it didn't focus too much on relationships (Unlike Spider-Man), and it was more about action than talking.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Batman (a.k.a. Bruce Wayne) is considered a fugitive by Gotham City, and is wanted despite his heroism and getting scum off the street like the mob groups. He eventually forms an alliance with the police and the district attorney Harvey Dent, and even his former girlfriend Rachel, and together they remove several mob groups and hundreds of fugitives are arrested. All seems to be well for a small period of time until a person known only as The Joker shows up and starts killing people, all in return for Batman to reveal himself or more people get killed. Batman becomes the most despised person in Gotham over the fact that people's lives are being taken every day because of him, and there is nothing they can do about it. So Batman must hunt down The Joker and save his friends and the citizens of Gotham City, only this movie doesn't end how you'd predict it to.MUSIC: The music is fantastic and goes great with the already near-perfect film.DISTURBING FACTOR: I never expected a superhero movie to be this creepy and disturbing. There are some scenes which make this film borderline an R-rating for how violent some of them are. Heath Ledger really does a great job at portraying Joker as a complete psychopath who you'd be terrified to come across.ACTION: Lots of shooting, lots of hand-to-hand combat, lots of vehicular mayhem, lots of explosions, and even more! This is one of the best action films I've seen in quite some time.ENTERTAINMENT: This film has a lot of unexpected scenes, even things occurred that I would have never been able to predict. This film is a roller coaster ride of plot twists, adrenaline-rushing action scenes, and it's even suspenseful, all the way to the bizarre ending. This is without a doubt one of the best films I've seen in quite some time, and is a definite must-see for any movie buffs. You don't even need to be a fan of superheroes to enjoy this kickass movie, just go watch it... NOW!OVERALL: The beginning of the movie is slow with some relationship problems and a few other things, but when the ball starts rolling it doesn't stop and you don't want it to end any time soon.THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, great action, surprisingly disturbing, little focus on relationship problems, and it's an overall kickass movie.THE BAD: The beginning is slow and goes into relationship problems, but it ends quickly at least. 
Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie.  The dialogue is crisp and witty, and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it.  I loved the gag reel, too.  I can't wait for the next one to come out! 
What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic.There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles.I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic.Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers........... 
Read the book in high school. While it's been done many times they never came close to following the book which was always disappointing. This one is the only one to follow the book as they took the time ( 6 episodes) to develop all the characters fully. They clearly spent the money to be true to the book. The many supporting actors ( at least 25) were all outstanding and perfect for their respective parts. Colin Firth and Jennifer Uhle were certainly outstanding but the supporting cast makes this movie.Add to that the outstanding music that was chosen and this is about as prefect a presentation that you can get. Since we bought this, we've probably re-watched it a dozens times- it's that enjoyable. 
It's been years since I've read _The Vampire Lestat_ or _Queen of the Damned_, so I remember only bits and pieces of detail from them.  This probably contributed greatly to my enjoyment of the film, because the screenwriters largely mangled the plot from both of those books, combining them into one movie. If I had looked forward to the actual QotD plotline, I would've been disappointed.Akasha actually has a relatively small role in the film, and Mekare is entirely absent. Maharet is alive and well in the Mojave Desert. Still, it all comes together, and focuses primarily upon Lestat, his transformation into a vampire, and his career as a rock star (his singing voice is Jonathan Davis, the lead singer from Korn, who is perfect for Lestat.)For those unfamiliar with Rice's books, Lestat is a bad boy, even by vampire standards; he likes to cause trouble, and lots of it. We learn why he has a hard time being a vampire, and what he yearns for most of all. In the first few moments of the film, he awakens from a 100-year nap to find an entirely different world - a world in which he can cope much better. He outs himself as a vampire to the whole world, becomes the biggest rock legend around, and begins giving away the secrets of the vampires living among humans. The other vampires are, needless to say, a bit peeved about this, and they come after him. There are several driving forces in the film - Lestat himself, the covens coming after him, Akasha's awakening and subsequent quest for a lover, and Marius, who in this film is Lestat's sire.While the last 20 minutes are somewhat less than gratifying, the rest of the movie is fairly sound and enjoyable. It felt shorter than it actually was, strangely enough. Large sections of the original plot are left out entirely or are incorrectly depicted, and if one were to focus on that point alone, one would probably not enjoy this movie at all. I went into it with the sole intent of just enjoying a movie that looked like it was very beautiful - and it was.Aesthetically, this film is top-notch. The costumes, make-up and special effects are wondefully done. The acting is very good, and the screenplay itself isn't bad, either. Aaliyah did a fine job as Akasha, and Stuart Townsend was a great Lestat - much, much better than Tom Cruise. The settings are appropriately dark and moody, filled with beautiful sets, sensual people, and a wonderful soundtrack, and there is an almost dreamlike quality to much of the film.The one problem I had with the film was that too much was cut out of it for a lot of details and characters to make a great deal of sense. When many of the ancients arrive on the scene, many questions hung in the air, chiefly "ok, who *are* you guys, and why are you helping this person?!" The DVD features many scenes that were cut, though, and includes notes on why the filmmakers removed them. Many of them help things come into focus more clearly, and it's unfortunate that they were deleted. Perhaps someday, an extended version will be released, reintegrating these scenes.Overall, it was a very enjoyable movie experience, and I think even Anne Rice fans will enjoy it, if they can look beyond the liberties taken with the storyline, and just try to enjoy a vampire movie that's better than most. 
Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!! 
I am outraged at the negativity toward a brilliant film. Not only does this movie nail the 70's in so many ways, but mirrors current events (New Jersey) in such perfect concordance, that it seems completely predictive of a thousand news stories circling the planet. How current does a movie have to be when it looks deep in the heart of darkness in American politics and then it all plays out right in front of us?American Hustle is an excellent and entertaining Comedy/Crime Drama that combines great direction,a terrific cast,a wonderful script and a fantastic soundtrack all of those elements make American Hustle a great film that has to be seen.Set in New York City in the late 1970s,American Hustle tells the story of two con artists,Irving Rosenfield(Christian Bale)and Sydney Prosser(Amy Adams)who have been forced by FBI agent Richie DiMasso(Bradley Cooper)to participate in a FBI operation called ABSCAM,a sting operation to set up corrupt politicians including Camden,New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito(Jeremy Renner)and gangsters. As the stakes become higher and with danger coming at every corner Irving and Sydney have to figure out how to get out and survive.Throughout the history of cinema,con artists and Grifters have been covered in movies ranging from The Sting(1973),The Grifters(1990)and now American Hustle,an amazing film from beginning to end that keep your attention with fantastic movie making that never stops. Right from it's weird and offbeat opening American Hustle is a movie that combines Comedy,Crime Drama and a true life tale that is funny and quirky and at other times serious and intense giving viewers a movie that plays by it's own rules and creates it's own world. With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark. When you look at AH you will see that the movie was obviously influenced in many ways by Martin Scorsese's classic Gangster epics such as Goodfellas(1990)and Casino(1995)with the way the camera moves,the style and look of the film and the use of narration replacing Gangsters and Mobsters with con artists but O'Russell takes the style and makes it his own. The Comedy in AH is great and hilarious because the laughs are never forced on viewers or telling them when scenes are funny but lets the viewers figure out when scenes are funny whether it's in some of the scenes or in the main characters dialog or actions. The Comedy is balanced out by the Crime Drama elements as well which are done with attention and detail like a other Crime Dramas and you are gripped with every scene that involves cops and crime. But the Crime Drama element isn't always serious and is entertaining. The beautiful photography by Linus Sandgren and amazing production design by Judy Becker truly add to the film and give AH a realistic look and feel of the 1970s with vibrant colors and sets that pull you into the world that AH wants to portray and it's one of the reasons the movie succeeds. The main characters in the film whether it's the con artists,federal agents are fascinating and interesting with laughs and depth because with each main character everyone wants to succeed at what they do whether it's good or bad. Also,with the characters there is no black and white but a gray area that is complex and real and you will relate to some of the characters in some ways. The screenplay by Eric Singer and David O'Russell is impressive and well-done with dialog that is a mixture of funny and serious. The ending of American Hustle is wonderful,surprising and unexpected and fits with films about con artists and Grifters. An outstanding conclusion to a great movie.The whole cast is amazing. Christian Bale is excellent and at his best as Irving Rosenfield,with Bale bringing intensity and emotional(and physical)depth to the role. Bradley Cooper is brilliant and funny as FBI agent Richie DiMasso,with Copper being offbeat and dramatic. Amy Adams is terrific and beautiful as Sydney Prosser,Irving's partner in crime and has great scenes with Bale,Cooper and Lawrence. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Mayor Carmine Polito,a New Jersey politician. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing and sexy as Roselyn Rosenfield,Irving's attractive but overbearing wife. Also,lookout for a great uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro in a great performance as Victor Tellegio,a high level gangster. Louis C.K(Stoddard Thorsen),Jack Huston(Pete Musane),Michael Pena(Paco Hernandez),Shea Whigham(Carl),Alessandro Nivola(Anthony Amando)and Paul Hermane(Alfonse Simone)give good performances as well.The direction by David O'Russell is brilliant and stylish,with O'Russell always moving the camera with tracking shots,close-ups and a nice visual style. Terrific direction,O'Russell.The score Danny Elfman isn't always used but good when it's heard. The film has a great soundtrack with songs by Elton John(Goodbye Yellow Brick Road),Wings(Live And Let Die),The Temptations(Papa Was A Rolling Stone),Duke Ellington(Jeep's Blues)and more. Outstanding soundtrack.. 
I always enjoy this movie! It is very fun, entertaining, and Julie Andrews is absolutely amazing! A classic film for every generation and those to come. The blu ray surprisingly looks really well but not perfect. It does contain some scenes that are grainy, but they still are very enjoyable. The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version. A must own classic! 
"The Phantom Of The Opera" is impressive! Gerard Butler is impressive as the Phantom. Emmy Rossum is equally impressive as Christine Daae. Patrick Wilson is also impressive as Vicomte de Chagny, aka Raoul. The music is magnificent. The directing by Joel Schumacher is excellent. The screenplay by Schumacher & Andrew Lloyd Webber (on whose play that the movie is based on) is excellent. The visual design of the movie is beautiful. 
The trailer was great...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did. 
Wes Anderson's third film, "The Royal Tenenbaums," is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) "Rushmore."One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question "Can the boy tell time?" with "Heavens, no."He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in "Rushmore" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song "Needle in the Hay."The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here.Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection. 
First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie.  It's funny, smart and entertaining.  The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great.  Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie.  The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking.  Watch this movie.The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't.  The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos".  Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many.  Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't.  The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many.  The extras are good, but not really great.All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience. 
Its too bad because this film could have been great. The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing,  but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed.  The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building. 
Having just seen Kill Bill, Vol. 2, I can confirm that the interviews and press reports are accurate:  By splitting one film into two, what you get are two halves that each has its own very pronounced merits, but need each other to survive.  In fact, I think if the two volumes had cross-pollinated a little more, you wouldn't have had just a good movie and a half, but two great films.But for now, Kill Bill Vol. 1.  It's the "action" half of the twins, and it dazzles right from the start with an audacious, extended extreme close-up on Uma Thurman's face.  The scene after, the duel between The Bride and Vernita Green, is classic Quentin Tarantino, heralding a return to his outrageous, dramatically intense roots.  Probably the strongest scene he's directed since the Mr. Pink-Mr. White altercation in Reservoir Dogs.  Unfortunately, after The Bride wakes up from her coma, the dramatic content flies down the meter, with a lot of posing and one-liners but very little in terms of character or emotional satisfaction.  Which means it's up to the endless action set pieces to grab our attention.  And they do.  However, I find them a little too bloody, even though I've spent the last 16 months digging through Shaw Brothers films (through the excellent Celestial Pictures VCD and DVD releases).  The endless bloodletting in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is shocking in the beginning, but after about five minutes in the extended climactic massacre, it's numbing.And for the record, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is not a Shaw Brothers kind of film, despite the Shaw logo which opens the film.  You would have to wait until the "training" sequences in Vol. 2 to get Shaw Brothers-style cinema (which Tarantino appropriates very well there).  Vol. 1 is much more a paean to the Japanese style of filmmaking:  Extremely saturated colours courtesy of cinematographer Robert Richardson (even Shaw films didn't go this far in terms of garish colours -- we're in '80s Kurosawa territory here), emphasis on extreme wide shots, the very long builds, the brilliant music by The RZA.  And the martial-arts sequences are modern in their multi-angularity and speed cuts; Shaw Brothers action as epitomized by Chang Cheh's style focuses much more on choreography and mise en scene than multi-angularity, letting long medium shots capture the movement of the actors and fighters, relying very little on cuts.All in all, the most lacking element in Kill Bill Vol. 1 is still story and character.  Uma Thurman has some great moments (such as when The Bride first wakes up in the hospital), but after those blazing first 30 minutes, she will mostly become a statuesque hellfire angel who doesn't have a great deal of emotional advancement.  You will get that in spades in Vol. 2, which is hands down a superior story and film -- without the visual eye candy and endless action of Vol. 1, but with such powerful dramatic moments that it barely matters.  Again, I think if Tarantino had been able to meld the action and the drama a little more, rather than separate them into two movies that contain most of one and almost none of the other, he would have made both films greater than what they are.  As it stands, Vol. 2 will be what truly burns these characters and Tarantino's vision into your mind, while Vol. 1 is the adrenalized thrill ride with energy to spare, but without much in terms of thematic depth. 
I was very optimistic when I watched this film. I expected a good or excellent movie. WOW was I wrong. First of all, I was totally baffled by the main character, played by Matt Damon, as he was  lifeless and only had like three lines in the whole movie.This is the only movie I've ever seen where the main character didn't speak.  Why were women attracted to him? I've never been attracted to mutes myself. Also the plot was a confusing, jumbled mess. I think this film committed the worst crime possible-it didn't give the viewer a reason to care about the characters or the plot.It was also a very boring film.Considering all the critics' hype I was expecting at least a marginally enjoyable film. Alas, not so.Also, wierdly, the deleted scenes are also very long and boringI hope Ocean's 13 and The Bourne Ultimatum will be more enjoyable. But I'm not holding my breath. 
I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. 
Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD.  It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version.  If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set.  I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. 
Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get "Take My Breath Away" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that "Maverick" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far.Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life.Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth. Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes. 
A lot of the parts are at night or in the dark. It seemed like the end was anti-climatic.  Tom Hanks is great. 
I am going to try to refrain from writing a lengthy review for this film, and keep it as succint as possible, although for a film like this, the task almost seems impossible. Many reviewers have already said some things that I am going to say, and would have liked to say, but the review will go on, anyway.This is a powerful movie, in which it's main theme centers around drug abuse & addiction, and the dangerous consequences that may follow. But, the film centers on more than just drug abuse and addiction: to me it also centers on life, and how the average folk go about trying to embellish what seems like the emptiness of life. To try and enhance (and possibly) facilitate the meaning of that last sentence, think about this: many people do -- and/or try to reach for -- things that are supposed to make one's life more meaningful and complete: getting married, experiencing the birth of one's first child, going to college, becoming wealthy and/or famous, et al. In society, we are basically brought up to believe that if we follow along certain patterns (e.g. becoming wealthy, etc), we will be happy & fulfilled. One of the many things this film shows us, is that sometimes, what we are brought up to believe, can be a devastating illusion, or at least, there is a strong possibility of this.This story focuses on four main characters, and their addiction to drugs. The story is also cleverly told over the course of four seasons (three, technically), and like another reviewer pointed out a few pages back, the mood of each season correlates with the psychological and circumstantial happenings of each character (or vice versa.) The film starts with the Summer, which correlates with adolescent feelings. In this case, these four characters seemed as if they were happy (or at least we may think they are happy), and seemed to be filled with laughs, smiles and confidence in their future and dreams. In the Autumn, which represents added responsibility, and preparation for "darker times", things start to slowly go downhill for the gang. We can see their circumstances beginning to spiral, and their dispositions begin to follow downward as well. By, Winter (which represents "death" or the "ending"), each of these four members seem to meet the "finality" of their fates, to disturbing effect, to say the least. Spring, which represents birth, and fresh, new beginnings, never arrived. Heavy stuff, there.Some reviewers have complained about the camera techniques used in this film to be nothing more than flash for flash's sake, and similarly, some have said that some of the disturbing scenes found in the film were there for shock value only. I couldn't disagree more. For starters, like another reviewer has pointed out, the "speeding up" and "slowing down" techniques are supposed to correlate with the "speeding" or "raciness" of the characters' thought processes while under the influence of...well...speed (and other drugs.) I found this to be very clever and fascinating. Secondly, while there *are* indeed disturbing images in the film, I didn't necessarily find the images to be the most disturbing aspect of the film, but rather *how* these images were shot. In other words, it's more *psychologically* disturbing, than it is *graphically* disturbing, if that can be basically understood. The way this film was made alone, should not be taken lightly, and it is indeed clever and noteworthy filmmaking. You'd have to see the film for yourself to possibly get a better understanding of what I am talking about.Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly did wonderful and convincing jobs in their respective roles. Their performances truly helped to make the film what it was, and it wouldn't have been as complete without them. Ellen Burstyn's performance seemed to get a droves-worth of accolades, and deservedly so. Her performance was undoubtedly the most frightening, disturbing and heart-wrenching thing about this film. In moments, her character made me laugh, want to cry, and at other times, made me want to turn my head away from the screen altogether. The whole movie is powerful indeed, and the last segment (Winter) is indeed the most intense and hellish part of the movie.I watched this film with another member of my family, and by the time the "Winter" segment had arrived, we were *both* saying things like, "I will *never* watch this movie again. It's a little *too* much reality." Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving, this film will stay in your mind long after it has ended, and many will gather their own responses as to what the movie meant to them. And, if some of you think that what happened to these characters can't happen to anyone in real-life, think again: it's *very* real, and *can* happen (and no doubt *has* happened to some in real-life.) Indeed, reality can be too much at times.Before I close out this review, let me share a brief story with you about someone who used drugs: it was documented in a program (I can't remember the name of it right now) that a female experimented with a drug, and not too long after that, her friends were quick to comment that she was becoming excessively paranoid and delusional. She was sent to a specialist who did a brain scan on her. When the doctor took a look at the scan, we the viewers (and no doubt the girl, and her mother, who happened to be alongside her) saw something *very* disturbing: there were various holes -- large holes -- throughout her brain: like the equivalent of looking at a piece of cheese after a mouse had nipped through it quite well. The result? This girl now suffers from acute bipolar/manic-depressive disorder. And you know what else? This was the result of her experimenting with a drug: after ONLY ONE TRY! That's right, this girl is now stuck with a "psychotic disorder" for the rest of her life, as the result of her experimenting with a drug after only *one* try. Yes, indeed, reality can be a bummer. I recommend seeing this film at least once; this goes for everyone. 
This film is about a group of  seniors who all find them selves on their way to India to retire and live because for one reason or another, they can no longer afford to retire in England, their home.  This is a timely, realistic story for today with some fun characters.  There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too!  The cast is fantastic ( Maggie Smith & Judy Dench) and charming.  I really enjoyed this one! 
I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying.WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon! 
I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth. 
This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth. They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore.  But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity. 
I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already. 
Okay, so I don't actually drink tea. But I must admit, I really don't care for this movie that much. Personally, I don't understand what all the hoopla's about concerning HSM. Sure, the songs are not bad, and the actors are kinda cute, and you gotta give those guys credit for putting a lot of time and effort into this movie. But for some reason, this little teenybopper flick just doesn't turn me on like it seems to do with everyone else. Just about everywhere I turn, it's always "High School Musical this" and "High School Musical that", and all I can say is: "Give me a break." 
It's outstanding! I bought it for my dog and she enjoyed it enormously. The service and price were excellent. I bought this movie for my dog. My cat said it was childish and didn't like it. But my 4 year old dog loves it. She's watched it many times. 
Jennifer Lawrence could read the phone book and I would be fascinated. However, the plot of the Hunger Games is rather weak. Predicting the future has always been a stumbling block for most science fiction writers. We've seen plenty of versions regarding how terrible the future will be... going all the way back to Huxley and Wells. This one divides the country (I presume it is America) into the very wealthy and the very poor, with one poor person given the chance to survive a publically broadcast games that pit children against one another until only one is left standing. This is about as likely as never happening. The premise is so weak as to make the rest of the movie a joke. Supporting performances are also weak. The film relies almost entirely on special effects and the performances of Lawrence and veteran Donald Sutherland. While I love science fiction, I found the end did not justify the means. The plot is weak throughout and solution is open ended, hence Hunger Games, two - will Jennifer end up with her true boyfriend; will she have to volunteer for the games again (she'd have to survive because I believe there is a book three!!!!). Unfortunately, it did well at the box office and Hollywood loves a winner so there will be more coming... but I will not be watching. 
Always been a Trekkie and this movie is awesome! I loved it from beginning to end and would watch it repeatedly if I could get away with it! 
If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film.If you are, you'll like "Journey".This is a good family film. We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter.The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best.Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end.Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion.This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value. 
I agree with the other haters on this one.  I like Tarantino's work generally but this movie fell flat.  There are scenes that seem to go on forever with a bunch of uninteresting characters spouting boring dialog about things you don't care about.  ALL IN SUBTITLES!  Pitt's character is ridiculous as is the entire premise of the movie.I know it is a fantasy but it comes off as silliness as the plot and the situations portrayed in the film are completely asinine. It is also mildly disturbing that the horror of WWII is trivialized somewhat, if only it would have been that easy to kill the Nazis.I truly don't understand the rave reviews here. Tarantino rips off himself and other film cliches that have been done a million times before only better.  He is a spent force. 
"Pocahontas" was not exactly what I expected from Disney.  (For one thing, the princess doesn't wind up with the "prince" -- a little closer to Pocahontas' real life story).  That said ... the music, animation, and so on are all outstanding.  One of the real surprises in this film is Mel Gibson's talent as a voice actor and *singer* - he's extremely good.  Gibson describes himself as a "shower-only singer," and I think that is a real misnomer.Pocahontas has her amusing animal friends, Flit (the humming bird) and a truly humorous little raccoon whose name escapes me at the moment.  It is because of her friendship with these animals that she works so hard to convince John Smith (Gibson) of the importance of living in harmony with the land.I think the film carries a couple of good messages, along with its high entertainment value.  The first is, of course, to live in harmony with the land.  The second is that "savage" is often defined by which side of the line you happen to stand on - people often see those who are different as "wrong."  "Pocahontas" goes a long way toward teaching young people the importance of shedding that viewpoint. 
Action was fun to see but storyline was blah and of even their cheesy lines you expect to hear were poorly placed. 
RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on  A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to. 
I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case.  First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance.  However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting.  The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes.  I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice.  Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence.  Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role.  I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.'  After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film.  Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life.  Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise.  The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically.  I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film. 
"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie. 
The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind. 
Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man. 
Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon's shows have. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. 
To my surprise, T3  didn't turn out to be as bad as I thought it would have been.  I had low expectations of this film due to all the factors that gave reasoning for this to be a bad film such as the absenses of James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.  But after I saw this film, I was BLOWN AWAY from all those thoughts.  This film was terrific!  It would have been nice Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong (the kid who played John Conner in T2)to return but not everything is perfect in life.  This easily one of Arnold's best movies he has made in years.  But compared to the first two, this is the worst Terminator movie yet, but it is still a mind blowing action-packed thrill ride.  Atnold's back and better then ever and has his mind set on a new intense adventure as a machine.  Anyway, here is the plot..It has now been ten yrs since skynet was blown away.  Sarah Conner is now deceased and John Conner is now basically doing whatever he can to avoid the life he was destined for.  He basically does what he can to stay alive and keeps traveling hundreds of miles but really has no idea where he is going.  Nut it turns out that blowing up Skynet doesn't prevent Judgement Day; it only postponed it.  That means that the Terminators will still exist, and now there is one a new and very advanced one.  It is called the T-X (Terminatrix), played by Kristanna Loken who is wicked hot!  She is Faster, stronger,and can control and heavy machinery with her mind .  As in she can drive a car, but she won't be in the car, she will be somewhere else while her mind will be controlloing the car.  This Terminator is sent to do the obvious-Kill John Conner.  But that is not all.  Conner isn't going to be the only general in the war against the machines in the future.  There will be other generals in the war and the T-X must kill everynody who will become a general in the future right now so they won't be able to fight in the war.  Also a T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger).  It is slighlty more advanced then the T-800's that were sent back in the first 2 films.  His mission is of course protect Conner and his fri9end Kate Brewster (Clare Danes).  It seems that Brewster's father is the man who will create Skynet and is almost finished with the project.  Now it is up to them to stop that from happening and before the T-X can get to them and terminate them.  One other thing, Earl Boen makes a small reappearence as Dr. Silberman (the guy who treated Sarah Conner in the first 2 films)Anyway, T3 is loaded with instense action and lots of destruction.  This film had the most destruction out of the 3.  The only thing that keeps that this film from getting a perfect 5/5 is that part is confusing and there are some things in this movie that seem ridiculous.  Things such as the T-850 kicking an ambnulance and cousing it to tip over.  This film however doesn't come close to as good as the second was.  T2 was way better, even the original Terminator (1984) was better.  But this is still good and should be ssen while it is still in theaters. 
This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when  mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it. 
Let me start off by saying that I am one of the people that saw Avatar multiple times in theaters and loved it.  The CGI , as well as the 3D technology infused, were by far the best I have ever seen.  James Cameron and all of the people who participated in the making of this movie did a tremendous job.  Weta workshop is taking its place at the top of the mountain, as far as visual effects companies go.  Watching this movie was like being transported to a different universe.  I was completely immersed throughout the almost three hours I was in the theater.As for the story and acting for the film, I am probably in the minority on most of these reviews.  The story for me, while predictable and reminiscent of other movies I'd seen previously (What movie isn't nowadays?), was extremely enjoyable.  Watching this made me feel young again.  It made me forget about all the worries that an adult life brings, and just enjoy myself in the moment.  Many people argue that the acting in this movie was subpar.  These people say that the portrayals of the characters were downright cartoonish.  I would argue strongly against that.  For the type of movie that this is, the good versus evil portrayals given by the actors works in the movie's  favor.  Sam Worthington especially does well.  If you haven't seen him in Terminator: Salvation, do so.  He made the movie worth watching.Now, to get to the actual product at hand.  I ordered the Blu Ray / DVD combo pack from Amazon.  From the moment the menu came onto my screen, I knew this was going to be something special.  When I pressed play, there was no turning back.  Over the next three hours, my senses were completely assaulted and my mind was dumbstruck.  Simply put, James Cameron's Avatar on the Blu Ray format is the best picture and audio we have seen or heard to date.  I have a feeling it will be years before anything better is brought to the table.  Watching the visuals was more stimulating than looking at a real life forest.  Every detail could be seen from far and away.  The walls of my house shook, and I just hope the neighbors did hear.  I would tell them to buy the movie themselves and experience it.With this release comes certain issues.  While I don't have any of them myself, I will still talk about them as it would be uninformative of me to not.  This release of Avatar is not in 3D.  Many people complain about this, and a large percentage of those people do not even have the right equipment to properly experience 3D yet.  The technology for home theater 3D is very new and very pricey.  Next year, after all the quirks have been worked out, is when we will likely see Avatar in a home release 3D format.  Another gripe is the complete lack of special features.  This again has a good reason.  In the Special Edition coming later this year, there will be scenes incorporated into the movie not even visually completed yet.  Documentaries in high definition have to be put together.  A commentary track needs to be recorded.  No one is being forced to buy this "stripped" edition, however. I am one of the people who will knowingly double or triple dip on this.  The reason for that is because I love it so much.Now to the biggest complaint.  During the initial release, many people were complaining that Avatar would not play in their Blu Ray players.  The reason for that seems to be some new copy protection put on the disc.  While I was not one of the people with this problem, I can certainly sympathize with those who did.  A new firmware update is all it will take to fix the issue.  My PS3, which serves as my Blu Ray player, had a firmware update ready for me before I watched the movie.So if you are one of the millions who loved Avatar when you saw it in theaters, or one of the people who didn't get around to seeing it, now is your time.  Pick this movie up right away without hesitation.  Keep an open mind, and let yourself become immersed.  You do not want to miss what many people believe is one of the top movies of all time. 
This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different). 
As one of the most awaited movies in history, it would be very hard to live up to the hype that surrounded Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith.  But it does - and does so very, very well. If Episodes I and II were the appetizers, Episode III is the main course and the desert for the Star Wars prequel trilogy.If you don't know, the Star Wars prequel trilogy was designed to be the story of a good man's decent into evil - eventually leading him to become one of cinemas most iconic villains: Darth Vader.  In Episodes I and II we see glimpses of this character as Anakin Skywalker fights off his inner anger and fear in the face of turmoil.  In Episode III, these feelings become even stronger because of the love he has for his secret wife, Padme, and his allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine.  As the Republic falls apart at the hands of Palpatine, so does Anakin.  It is truthfully painful to watch our hero's decent to the Dark Side of the Force, but the part is played magnificently by Hayden Christensen.Anakin is truly and thankfully the central character of this movie, but the other characters in the movie are pivotal as well. Ian McDiarmid (the aforementioned Chancellor Palpatine) delivers a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performace as Skywalker's "friend" who twists Anakin's mind and heart leading him to his eventual destruction.  Ewan McGregor also does an incredible job as Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he did in Episodes I and II, who plays a pivotal role in the movie as a protector of the galaxy and as Anakin's mentor, friend, and conscience.  The scenes between Anakin and his wife, Padme (played by Natalie Portman), are very good, heartbreaking, and touching.  Anakin discovers Padme is pregnant (with twins, unbeknownst to them - eventual Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia) which makes it all the more difficult for them to continue this marriage in secrecy. Portman delivers a wonderful performance, although her screen time is limited compared to the previous two prequels.  Both of the droids, C3PO and R2-D2, are back as well, as well they should be.  They are as essential a part of the saga as anyone is and any scene that they are in is definitely enjoyable.  The supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu, Christopher Lee as Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus, and the voice acting of Frank Oz as Yoda are wonderful as well.Being the last of the Star Wars films and the movie that connects the prequel trilogy to the original one, anyone familiar with Star Wars can see the end in sight when watching Episode III.  As George Lucas has said, this movie has most of the plot that he had envisioned when he decided to go back and do a prequel trilogy - and the plot does shine.  This movie totally pulls you in from start to finish. From the awe-striking space battle, through the multiple incredible lightsaber and ground battles, through Anakin's heart-wrenching struggle to choose what is most important to him and all of the confusion that these choices cause, and to the heartwarming, yet tear-jerking end - this movie is absolutely incredible and one for the ages.If you are a Star Wars fan, or even if you have never really checked it out before - this is an incredible movie for all audiences.  It may be a little scary and violent for younger viewers (hence the series' first PG-13 rating), but all of these movies are incredibly clean with no objectional content whatsoever (other than what I would call "mild" violence with no blood or gore).  I would recommend seeing the others before seeing this one, but this movie can definitely stand alone as a truly great movie.  This is definitely a MUST SEE, in my opinion, and is a MUST BUY for anyone who has been on the incredible ride that Lucas started in 1977 with a little movie that no one thought would succeed called "Star Wars". 
The Hunger Games is the start of another franchise of movies based a series of teen books.  However, I did not think the movie was that bad, but actually quite good.  I do not think it is as good as the Lord of the Rings films, Narnia films, or the Harry Potter films, but still fairly enjoyable.  Compared to the string of teen fantasy movies that have come out recently like Percy Jackson or Twilight this movie is god.The story is pretty simple.  It takes place in the distant future.  There was once a big civil war which has left North America in ruins.  Instead of countries there now exists twelve districts.  Each year the capital of Panem forces either a boy or a girl from each district to compete in the Hunger Games where they all battle to the death.  From District 12 a girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is chosen to compete along with her friend/love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth).People accuse this film of ripping of another film called Battle Royale.  Firstly I have not seen Battle Royale so I cannot say which film is better.  Secondly, I'm sure that Battle Royale was not the first of its kind either.  Everything is inspired by something.  There have been movies and TV shows that have come out after this that have a similar premise of people put somewhere and are forced to fight to the death.  For all anime fans out there, there is an anime that came out last year (the same year that the Hunger Games came out) called Btooom that has pretty much the same premise yet I do not see many people complaining that that show ripped-off Battle Royale.Plus the film is still well structured, well, acted, and can be entertaining.  The characters are pretty solid.  I do like Katniss and it is easy to sympathize with her given the situation.  The stuff that she goes through is pretty scary and intense.  I can say that I would be dead in the first ten minutes if I was put in the Hunger Games.The movie has some great effects, decent actions scenes, and an interesting world.  I cannot comment on the 3D because I only saw the film in 2D.  There is one complaint I have and that is the middle portion.  I found much of the middle of the film to be kind of boring.  The middle mostly focuses of the political aspect of this world and preparing Katniss for the games.Overall, the Hunger Games was a pleasant surprise.  I did not expect much upon going to see it.  I basically saw it because my mother made me see it.  I have to admit it was much better than I thought it was going to be.  It was nothing incredible but it was still good. 
There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of  the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical  score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march  from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet  seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film. 
This is a wonderful depiction of the lives of a wealthy British Lord, his family and friends in the 19th century. The characters have been cast perfectly, the acting is marvelous and the filming (on location at an actual mansion) is simply perfect. 
Very funny movie. This talking Teddy Bear is a hoot.  Makes you want a teddy bear that could talk.  I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor. 
If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious. If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. If you are looking for plausibility, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie. 
"Galaxy Quest" is one of the most fine and fun Sci-Fi Vids. Altho, meant as a spoof -- with many archetypical Sci-Fi aspects -- it actually demonstrates good Sci-Fi Vid production values. The plot, drama, dialog, romance, acting and actors are excellent -- as are the scenes, effects and Hi-Tech. The sets and settings are grand and galactic. Also, as are the audio effects and dramatic music. Also, as are the wheels-within-wheels of Sci-Fi reference aspects -- to "Star Trek", "Star Wars" and many other Vids -- and action-adventure in general. Also, as are the reversed archetypes. Especially great are the starships of the good and bad folks. As are the appearance of the good and bad folks. The Sci-Fi Con scenes are way funny -- as are the young geeks and nerds, who give critcal assistance to the "real" good folks. This Vid is a great Ideal of movie production in general -- that many folks can enjoy -- may The Farce be with you +++ 
Slasher films are a dime-a-dozen. HALLOWEEN. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The list is lengthy. Some of them introduce new characters that send goose bumps up our backs. Others tread over old material and put a fresh spin on them. But THE DESCENT doesn't do any of that.Comically labeled as "Six Chicks With Picks," this cave exploration thriller has the obligatory fright scenes (you know the kind ...where something weird suddenly and loudly burst toward screen), the attractive die-off cast, and themes trodden over time and again (from ALIENS to the horrible film THE CAVE.)For some reason this flick has gotten several positive reviews by professional film critics, but I fail to see why. There's nothing original. Nothing that lingers after watching it. No truly memorable cast members.That we're supposed to sympathize with Sarah (Shauna Mcdonald), the main character, is rammed down our throats (and through her husband's head) when a car accident takes Sarah's family from her. A year later, a group of girlfriends get together to go spelunking and to try and heal the wounds left by the death of Sarah's husband and child. There's a touch of deceit going on as Juno (Natalie Jackson Mendoza) was obviously having an affair with Sarah's husband before the accident. Whether Sarah knows of this or not is up for interpretation.As the group of six descend into the cave we quickly learn that this is an unexplored hole. And when a cave-in happens, they're forced to find another way out. But with them in the caverns is something pale and insidious (think about the Morlocks from THE TIME MACHINE and you won't be far off). But are they really there? Is it possible that Sarah's had a meltdown and only imagined seeing these creatures?It isn't the question of Sarah's sanity that'll put you off The Descent, but rather the ho-hum attitude most will have after seeing the film. It just doesn't have any emotional impact. You don't care whether these gals live or get their stomachs ripped open.The filming is also very dark and it's often difficult to see what exactly is going on. Although caves are dark and difficult to see in, this doesn't necessarily translate well to an entertaining movie experience.Still, those with a fear of enclosed spaces will probably be pretty freaked out by The Descent. The claustrophobia is easily felt, and when you add to that some bizarre ghost-like creatures with Spiderman-like crawling abilities, some might find this a lightly entertaining creep-fest. 
Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us "old fans", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed.The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters. It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in "Return of the Jedi".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire.Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks...well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth. 
GREAT movies, Great Blurays, love em!FELLOWSHIPPQ - 3.5-4/5AQ - 5/5MOVIE - 5/5TWO TOWERSPQ - 4-4.5/5AQ - 5/5MOVIE 5/5RETURN OF THE KINGPQ - 4.5-5/5AQ - 5/5MOVIE - 5/5Fellowship is a little soft, but that is because it is the first film, the budget was lower, but is an improved upgrade from dvd, it still looks great, I give it a 3.5-4 on the picture quality. Two towers is better, much sharper, 4-4.5 on picture quality, And Return of the King is the best, solid 4.5-5 on the picture. Some say DNR was used, but I am not seeing it, facial detail and hair detail, clothing detail is all there in all 3 films. The sound on all is awesome. CGI issues, this is not a problem with the transfer, but I feel the CGI gets better with each film. DVD hides CGI flaws, lower resolution, Blu makes things stand out even more, at the beginning of Towers, Gollum seems to float above the ground in some scenes. But by ROTK, Gollum is integrated into scenes perfectly. All the CGI has nothing to do with the transfers, it is how they were made and just not noticable on dvd. In all 3 films there are dark scenes that are a little washed out, like they filmed it too dark and spot lightened an area of the frame, they do this all the time in movies now, but it just flattens that area. This is the best LOTR has ever looked I am not disappointed in anyway for getting them.The extras, I am giving it a 3, since they are the same as the dvd, my gripe, they should have been in HD, not standard def. I've seen them all on the original releases and the EE releases. I expect them to be in HD, upconvert them, do what every, they should be in HD.The Mbps on the EE dvd's is 6-7, The Mbps is 20-30 on the Blu rays. That's 6 times better then the EE DVD's. For those who says there is no differance in the DVD's to Blu, you must have a crappy tv or bad eyes.Would rather have had both versions in one package, YES. But i am happy with the theatrical versions, the versions that one 17 Academy Awards, until the EE come out on Blu ray in 2012 
Ever since "The Lord of the Rings" ended, fans have been clamoring for "The Hobbit" to be adapted as well.Well, it took nine years of obstacles, but now we have "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," the first part of a trilogy of "Hobbit" movies. It has some few flaws (enough with the comedy!), but overall feels like a pleasantly familiar return to Middle-Earth -- fire, elves, orc-killing, a magic ring and lots of sweeping New Zealand landscapes.Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a nice boring gentlehobbit who has no interest in adventures. Then the wizard Gandalf descends on Bag End with thirteen dwarves. They are setting out for the lost city of Erebor, which the dragon Smaug stole many years ago -- and now Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) wants to reclaim it. Also, Gandalf has volunteered Bilbo as an expert burglar.Despite Bilbo's initial reluctance, he soon finds that the world outside the Shire is a pretty dangerous place -- trolls, goblins, stone giants and an albino orc who wants Thorin's head. And in a deep, dark cave, Bilbo encounters a grotesque creature known as Gollum...At the same time, Radagast the Brown Wizard (Sylvester McCoy) warns Gandalf of something that is poisoning the woods and animals of the Greenwood. Even worse, it's moved into the old fortress of Dol Guldur, and has the power to summon the dead.It took me two viewings of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" to really generate a valid opinion. The first time I was overwhelmed with fan squeeing over the spectacle, as a moderate-to-obsessed Tolkien nerd. The second time, I was able to more objectively view the movie's pros and cons.Peter Jackson has to be admired for managing to whip the first third of "The Hobbit" (plus chunks of "Unfinished Tales") into a three-act narrative structure, especially since the story is very small-scale and linear. It's a lighter story than any of the "Lord of the Rings" movies (the dwarves raiding Bilbo's pantry), but there's always a dark undercurrent reminding you that there is serious stuff afoot.And Jackson does a typically brilliant job evoking Middle-Earth's danger and majesty, sweeping us across glittering mountain citadels, murky forests and rotted fortresses. There are some absolutely stunning action scenes, such as Thorin stalking down a fallen, burning tree to fight his mortal enemy. He also fleshes out the storyline by exploring the Council investigating the Necromancer (three guesses who he is!), and a prologue showing everything that Thorin's people have suffered and lost. They're depicted as a proud people who have lost everything, and it adds a powerfully tragic undercurrent to the story.However... there are some problems with the movie. The comic relief characters (the trolls, the singing goblin king) simply don't work. And it needs some serious fat trimmed off, with some scenes (the stone giants) that could have been cut completely. It should have been maybe a half-hour shorter, with those scenes reserved for the extended edition.But the actors are pretty much all brilliant. Martin Freeman is the perfect mix of fussiness and gutsiness as Bilbo, and we can see him slowly growing into his friendships with the Dwarves. Richard Armitage is similarly brilliant as a butt-kicking dwarf prince who can be prickly and crabby, but who has also suffered a lot of humiliation and loss.And of course, we have familiar faces like Ian McKellen as the delightfully grumpy Gandalf, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee. McCoy is adorably scatterbrained as a wizard who likes animals more than people, and the various dwarves are all given personality and development to make them distinctive. That's a pretty impressive feat with such a large main cast.As for the extended special edition, this only has twelve minutes of new footage -- and since it was a long movie from a duology-turned-trilogy, that isn't surprising. But it will have the vast wealth of extras that we've come to expect from Peter Jackson: "The Appendices," a massive documentary that explores the entire filming of the movie. NINE HOURS OF EXTRAS, including audio commentary from Jackson and Phillipa Boyens.The comedy can be a bit grating, but "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is still a beautiful, intriguing start to Bilbo Baggins' journey. And the journey will only get more epic and dark. 
** This review contains spoilers for the book and the movie. **Katniss Everdeen lives in poverty stricken District 12 with her sister Primrose and her mother. The Reaping is approaching fast and Primrose is frightened she will be chosen even though it will be the first time her name is in the drawing. When Prim's name is called, Katniss volunteers as tribute to take part in the Hunger Games, where 2 young people (boy and girl, aged 12 to 18) from each of the 12 districts fight to the death for prestige and goods for their district. Only one victor survives. Katniss is plunged into a completely different world where being memorable and likeable will mean her survival. She will do what it takes to survive, but will it be enough?I read The Hunger Games a couple of years ago and it was never my favorite in the series. I felt it was a Battle Royale ripoff and the later books explored the dystopic world better and went beyond the obvious comparisons between the two works. This film made me forget all that. I was completely blown away and I really want to watch it about 20 more times. I haven't felt like this about a movie in a really long time. The ensemble cast was amazing, giving believable portrayal of characters I feel I know very well after reading 3 books about them. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen acted wonderfully. She always had an air of sadness yet responsibility. She made the tough heroine believable and relatable because her emotions were close beneath the surface despite her hard exterior. Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket provided much needed humor that alleviated the emotion and drama of the story. The other most notable actors were Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (more comic relief and makes Katniss realize the gravity of the reality TV aspect) and Isabel Fuhrman as Clove (sociopath and career tribute that left me with a chill every time she was onscreen).This film did 3 things extremely well that made it one of the best book to film transitions I've ever seen: capturing the emotions, humanizing the otherwise unlikeable characters, and working out timing. Two scenes in particular were very emotional for me.  The scene where Katniss volunteers as tribute for her sister was absolutely heartwrenching even though I had seen at least some of the scene hundreds of times in the past month from the commercials. The other scene that made me bawl like a baby was when Rue died. It was so sudden it took me a few moments for her death to process. I had cried at the scene in the book, but it's different seeing it on the screen. It was captured perfectly and there wasn't a dry eye in my theater. The other tributes were well humanized despite being portrayed as villains, especially the career tributes. Marvel at the end made a speech about how even he won he would be doomed because the Games are all he was good for. It showed that the other tributes aren't the real villains; President Snow and all those that perpetuate these sadistic Games are. I was surprised at how well the film flowed from scene to scene. About half of the film was dedicated to portraying the world, the assessing of the tributes, and the reality television aspect of the Games. The Games took up the latter half. I was never bored and I never thought any of the scenes ran too long. Although every single scene of the book wasn't included in the film, the essential scenes were preserved and given a satisfying amount of time.The most important triumph of this film was that I was never distracted by analyzing each and every difference from the novel. I was completely immersed in the cruel and depressing world of The Hunger Games and wondered at the characters' capacity for hope in the face of a bleak totalitarian regime. The only drawback at all was the shaky cam got a little extreme at points. Usually I'm against it on principle, but it let the film keep a gritty edge without pushing the boundaries into rated R territory by showing graphic scenes of children killing each other. I did not consider this book the best in the series and this movie was simply amazing. I can't wait to see what great films will be made of Catching Fire and Mockingjay. 
This will not doubt be compared to "Red Eye" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane.  Both are also psychological thrillers.  But the plots and details are very different.In Flight Plan, there are not flying on just "any" airlplane.  It is the new two story plane that is the worlds largest which in reality will start flying this year.  Jodie Foster's character is no ordinary person.  She is a propulsion engineer who had a big role in designing the plan.  Where Red Eye takes an average flight with (apparently) average people and puts them in a great plot, Flight Plan makes the lead character a powerful person.  To me this is a negative.  I'm sure the fact that she is an engineer, a job which few women hold, helped its political correctness score.But back to the movie.  I gave it four stars because it was very entertaining.  But like so many have said, it falls apart on closer scrutiny.  Wouldn't SOMEONE have seen or noticed the little girl coming on the plane?  Wouldn't someone have seen her being taken?  The "plot" had been planned out so thoughtfully by the antagonist (the air marshall), but what would have happened to the plan to take the girl if Foster's character had not fallen asleep.  There are only some of the problems with the movie.A strong part of the movie is that it sets up a very dreadful mood on the plane.  We can almost feel the emotions that Foster is feeling.  I could almost put myself in her position under those cicumstances.  One reviewer (not to give away more info. but I assume most people reading this review have already seen the movie) mentioned that the movie seemed to be going in the direction that she WAS dillusional and there really was no girl to being with.  Some viewers would have been angry at a "sad" ending like that, but it also would have bold and surprising.To me it would have make it a much better movie.  As it is, sit back and enjoy the movie, just don't try to make too much sense out of it.  And try not to be too dissapointed by the ending. 
Hotel Rwanda sheds light (as it should do) on the 1994 Rwanda genocide that led to the deaths of close to a million people while the world looked on.The manager of a Belgian owned luxury hotel, an ethnic Hutu, tries desperately to save his Tutsi wife and children as the world around him descends into chaos and madness; a nightmare where hatred and slaughter are the order of the day...Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo, Joaquin Phoenix, Nick Nolte, Jean Reno and the rest of this AMAZING cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least!  All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is something else)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide important insight not to mention more than a few tears.More relevant than ever, the movie does a great job as an eye-opener to one of the darkest events of the twentieth century.  The film provides the necessary background as well as an accurate description of conditions on the ground during the few months that the conflict lasted.  The world's reaction, or lack of it, (especially the American and British hypocrisy and inaction, and the French support of the Hutu perpetrators) is briefly touched upon.Moreover, it could have been and it should have been much more graphic in showing what really took place in Rwanda's "killing fields."Hopefully more will be done to stop the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Western Sudan and we will not have to wait for another movie to come out after it's all over before people become aware and do that which is humane.Similarly to movies like The Lord of War, The Last King of Scotland, and Blood Diamond to name a few, Hotel Rwanda draws attention to some pretty important issues facing Africa.In short, Hotel Rwanda is a movie definitely worth watching and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection! 
Wow! Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel, X2, was actually better! Now, the only thing stopping me from a full 5 stars is the fact that the plot is simplistic and rehashed from similar movies. You know the type - bad guys (once good) were wronged by the good guys and now seeks ultimate revenge. Had the plot been more original, it would boost the score one notch. Then again, it's based on a comic book series so how deep can it really get? I feel no particular need to explain the story as it's been done thoroughly by other reviewers and I never like to divulge the story line or it spoils it for the rest.However, having said that, I was so impressed with the characterization, acting, and special effects. The latter was amongst the best I've viewed bar none, particularly for the genre. It totally makes up for the lack of originality in the plot.Do yourself a favor, whether you are a die-hard comic book fan or a person who tends to dislike sci-fi or action movies, this flick will not disappoint! See it on the big screen. After being awed, purchase the DVD when it comes out. I plan to do so! 
Well, this movie is like any other ever made.  Because of its religious nature, it is nearly impossible to judge it simply as some flick to go see.  However, I'll first judge the film on whether or not you should go out and see it in the theatres, then on its movie merits, and I'll conclude with some thoughts on what this movie means theologically.If you are looking for a film to escape into, or looking for great entertainment value, or basically most of the reasons we go to see movies, The Passion is not the movie for you.  Firstly, this film is horrifyingly graphic and violent.  It is an accurate reflection of life as it was.  Outside of the graphic nature of the film, the 100 minutes of cellulite that represents that sum total of Christ's sacrifice is agonizing.  Though Mel Gibson breaks some of this up with flashbacks from Christ's earlier years, it's just so intense that if you don't understand the theology of the film, you won't enjoy this at all.  Simply said, this film was made for Christians that are committed to their faith, not for agnostics, atheists, or the average filmgoer.I don't mean to imply that this film is somehow "too good" for atheists, agnostics and non-believers.  I simply mean to state that this film is not attempting to be entertaining, or thought provoking, or anything else.  Christ's teachings are skimmed over, and not really mentioned, the consequences of the crucifixion are not expelled upon.  Simply, this is a portrayal of The Passion of Jesus as He went through what was destined.The merits of the film as a film are not lacking by any stretch of the imagination.  Though the film is based on the Gospels, as a story the life of Christ is far from boring.  Betrayal, skepticism, murder, conspiracy, love, belief, purpose.  All are part of the story of His last day.Similarly, there aren't any plot problems, subplot problems, theme issues, or major holes to speak of.  The accounts of His crucifixion take less than three pages of text per gospel.  As such, simplicity prevents questions of direction and purpose.Mel Gibson directed this film quite well.  The film flows together quite well.  Mel's vision of the last day of Christ is well done.  I am at a lack for words when it comes to describing the thanks I have for Mel Gibson for doing this film in the way he has.  His choice to be the man who nails Christ to the cross is important, and all but avoids silly questions about the anti-Semitic nature of this film.  Gibson's vision of the humiliation and struggle on His last day are awakening.  As a convert from atheism to Christianity, this movie has helped me in ways innumerous.Mel Gibson aside, the acting in The Passion is extraordinary in itself.  The highlights are Hristo Shopov's portrayal of Pontius Pilate.  Also, kudos are needed for Rosalinda Celentano's thankless portrayal of Satan.  Ms. Celetano's performance was visually spectacular .  Finally, James Caviezel gives an unbelievable performance of endurance as Jesus.  These actors deserve a lot of credit for making this film what it is.What is this movie?  An attempt to show the earthly pain that God as Man went through for us, all of humanity.  He carried our sins, the sins of all Mankind in an ongoing sacrifice.  That burden is incomprehensible to us as humans, but we get a taste of it here in this film.  Thank you Mel Gibson. 
This movie is gripping hardcore, shocking, scary, and very emotional.  You will never look at flight crew and airline pilots in the same way again. All of the action takes place in the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour movie. There is a moral principal to this movie.  The rest of the movie is all administrative investigations.  All parents beware that there is full on female nudity in this movie, not recommended for kids under 16 unless you want to be embarrassed. The nudity is at the very beginning of the movie. I was shocked by nudity, as it did nothing for the movie. I hate it when producers do that, what if you're with family members??? Can we say awkward!!! This movie has solid acting, a great storyline, good cinematography, and sound. All CGI effects are solid A+, very impressive, true realism effects.  ALL sets and props are solid. This is a stunning movie and I do recommend on Blue Ray. Thanks 
This series is fun to watch and enjoyable.  In the mode of Dowton Abbey, the period dresses and suits are fun to watch and enjoy.  Acting is very good with Jeremy Piven leading the way.  The plot is good but does wander a bit toward the end of the Season 1, nevertheless it is worthwhile watching.  Looking forward to season 2. 
My granddaughter loved this movie.  The songs especially!  It is perfect for young children...imaginative, humorous, and tuneful!  It allows children to flex their imaginations.  They can sing along  and pretend ... Something very important in development.  Imagination is very important in the creative process.  The color and film quality were excellent. It just never gets old! 
Life isn't always what it seems, and it doesn't always turn out the way we had envisioned or hoped. In this movie, we watch the inner lives of several characters "of a certain age" unfold and expand. With the bloom of youth past, retirement upon them and circumstances inducing radical change, all of them decide to retire in India at the Marigold Hotel. When they arrive, they find that the hotel isn't the luxurious retreat for the elderly that was described in the brochures that led them there. It is not without its charms, however, and the manner in which the retirees meet both the good and the bad of their new home lays the groundwork for their blended individual stories. The dialogue is excellent, the cast and the acting is brilliant, and the message is hopeful without violating believability. Baby boomers will see themselves in one or more of the characters' situations, and they will come away from the film with a renewed sense of hope and worth.The film's perspective on two ways to grow older is beautifully executed. Not all the characters "make it." Given the same opportunity for adjustment and change as their companions, a couple of them cannot forgive, hope or move forward. Others, however, find a new beginning by embracing change and welcoming a future which is completely different from the past they left behind.In all, the movie is provocative. It is funny, sad, engaging and substantive. A refreshing change from saccharine happily-ever-after or hopeless all-is-doomed films, this is a thinker's must-see for people in their sixties and a please-see for the young. (The young people in this movie are wonderful, too.) Kudos to the writers, producers, directors and actors for a job superbly done. 
This is one of my favorite scary movies, and one of Kubrick's best! Everyone in the cast gives great performances, and the direction is super, but the real star of the film is the Overlook Hotel. WOW. Creepiness. The way the camera ventures around the place is totally freaky, cause you have no idea whats going to be around the next corner...Basically, its about a man driven to insanity when he and his family volunteer to be caretakers at the Overlook for the summertime. Gradually, Jack Nicholson becomes very hostile towards his wife and son, all brought on by "cabin fever". As the spirits that live within the hotel begin to appear to Jack, things get weirder and weirder. This all leads to the cat-and-mouse finale, which is horrifying.You must buy this horror classic on video or DVD! Highly recommended! 
Everyone knows this story so I will be brief.  1979 version w/ Jessica Lange had a stronger sexual element to the monkey/girl relation, but was very touching nonetheless.  The relation here is more of an 'obsession' with a prized possession to protect, that the gorilla has with the girl, versus some type of purely sexual interest.I hate to say it, but here goes, fellows, we have all been that ape at one time or another.  You know what Im saying.  So the story is universal in that we can identify with the feelings of the protagonist, even if it is a monkey.Certain scenes are visually unforgettable.  Such as when Kong escapes the theatre and finally sees the Girl again in NYC, walking smokily down a blue lit street in pitch black winter.  You can see his expression go from fear it wont be her, to calm, and sad acceptance.  Throughout, Kong looks doomed and aware of it, even on the island.  He seems to be an older creature, and tired of the throne, which makes the protector relation to the girl more convincing.Really, a true classic.  Snubbed at the Oscars, but then LOTR was grossly overpraised, so it evens out.  Do not miss this. 
8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five.  The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen.  The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer.  The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now.  The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad.The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the "conspiracy unmasked" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT!*** The wraiths were also done very well.The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and "tone" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done.Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf "defeats" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising!*** 
Road House is one of the worst movies ever made--it's poorly acted, badly written and sloppily directed.  But that's why it's so much fun!Patrick Swayze plays a bouncer named Dalton who has a degree in philosophy, carries his medical history with him and is known as the best bouncer in the country.  The owner of a hick bar approaches him to help him clean up his establishment since he's come into a large sum of money and wants to improve it.Dalton's efforts lead to some of the most unintentionally funny lines ever used in movies.  A bouncer having sex with a female patron in a closet tells her "Yeah, you're gonna be my regular Saturday night thing!" just before Dalton walks in on them and fires the bouncer.  In another scene, a bouncer Dalton fires shoots back with "You **expletive**!  What am I supposed to do?"  Dalton answers "There's always barber school."Co-starring are Ben Gazzara as a sadistic rich guy who owns nearly the entire town (a role he hams up with glee), Kelly Lynch as a doctor and Dalton's love interest (though she's really just there as eye candy) and Sam Elliott as Dalton's friend and mentor who comes to help out when Dalton realizes he's not going to pull the job off alone.The movie is predictable and formulaic, but for fifteen bucks, it's good dumb fun.  For a good double bill of movie trash, watch this with Anaconda! 
When I was little my father would play Johnny Cash records and I distinctly remember "I Walk The Line".  While watching Joaquin Phoenix perform the song, you'd swear that it was Johnny Cash, himself.Walk the Line is a great movie. When you watch it, you feel as though you are watching Johny Cash in person.  Phoenix has done an excellent job capturing Cash, the man. Not the legend and not what everyone thought he would be. What made Johnny Cash such an icon was that he was an "everyman" and Phoenix gives his all to not only capture every subtle nuance but also to make him believable as a flawed human being.  Reese Witherspoon's performance, as well, is surprisingly good. There are precious few points in the film where you remember she was in Legally Blonde, and her vocals and live performances are stronger than many I've seen from Hollywood actresses in recent years.The music performances are enough to make this film worth seeing. But the love story between these two, the way that June and her family helped him back from his drug addiction are what gives the film its heart. I would recommend this film to anyone, Johnny Cash fan or not. If you don't like him now, you will when the movie is over 
So why the 5-star review, you might ask?There is just something about this movie that I can't put my finger on.  The actress playing Dale Arden (sp?) is painfully bad, especially during the football fight scene where she claps her hands, joyfully egging Flash on with "Go, Flash, go!  Go, Flash, go!"  Topol (Fiddler on the Roof) is over-the-top as the mad genius scientist who is the only one on Earth to realize that all of the natural disasters are a direct result of an alien attack.  Max von Sydow plays his villainous role as Ming the Merciless with "muhahahahaha" glee.  Timothy Dalton doles out his dalliance as Prince Barin, ruler of Arboria.  Brian Blessed is priceless as Vultan, leader of the Hawkmen; how he got through the enitre movie wearing what had to be uncomfortable (and very upsetting) leather shorts is admirable.The effects are cheesy (although, at times, brilliant - The Sea of Fire near the beginning is still eye candy for me).  The acting is campy.  The drama is laughable.So why does it continue to fascinate me?  Despite its horrible trappings as a stand-alone movie, it truly is an embodiment of the Saturday morning serial (which Star Wars PROFESSES to be, but has degenerated into a contest of making something fake look real).  With THAT in mind, the movie plays out as good, cheesy campy fun and always has you wondering how the hero continues to cheat death in a nearly 2-hour movie (as opposed to the next weekly installment).  The matter-of-fact discussions about Earth's imminent destruction, our hero and damsel-in-distress somehow instantly falling in love and the inexplicable onset of early jealousy after having only traded about 10 lines of dialogue, the sometimes brilliant lines of dialogue delivered by Max von Sydow (especially how he discusses with Zarkoff why it's HIS fault that Earth is being destroyed), etc., brews an unusual beverage of serial episode fun that was purely misunderstood back when this was released.  That, and what has to be one of the most unusual (and quite good!)soundtracks by Queen--especially the In the Space Capsule theme--has me coming back and watching just another curious addition to a catalog of Dino de Laurentis films. 
Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed. 
Arguably the best crime film of 1968, and certainly one of the most influential films of the genre...."Bullitt" established new directions in the mood and style of crime thrillers, and firmly established McQueen as one of the key anti-hero stars of the 60's. Based on the gritty novel "Mute Witness" by Robert L. Pike, this was the first, and only, time McQueen portrayed a police officer (albeit a maverick one) in his movie career. In 1968 Steve was then riding high on the success of his previous heist film, "The Thomas Crown Affair", and "Bullitt" just propelled his star even higher into the cinematic heavens !The plot is tight, economical and well crafted....taciturn, moody Detective Frank Bullitt (McQueen) is charged with the protection of a key witness vital to an upcoming trial involving Mafia connections. Whilst hidden away in a supposed secure location, the witness and his police guard are brutally gunned down by unknown assailants. The heat is turned up on Bullitt by his tough Captain (Simon Oakland) and the manipulative, opportunistic politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) to come up with the right answers fast ! Between the draining investigation, Bullitt struggles to maintain his relationship with his cultured, sensitive girlfriend, Cathy (Jacqueline Bisset)Primarily coming from a TV series background, Englishman Peter Yates (directing his fourth movie) did a commendable job as director on "Bullitt"...producing a complex, intense crime thriller with a unique style that would ultimately influence many other films. Yates would later to go onto direct tough guy Robert Mitchum in the excellent 1973 "sleeper" crime film "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" !And of course "Bullitt" is reknowned for it's now legendary car chase between Frank Bullitt's 390 GT Mustang and the two hitmen in their black, Dodge Charger 440 Magnum barrelling through the city streets and highways of San Francisco....just don't pay too much attention to how many times they pass that slow-moving, green VW Beetle !!The DVD transfer is excellent in both sound and picture quality, and the Limited Edition Collectors Set with the additional goodies (Single sheet poster, shooting draft, lobby cards etc.) is a real bonus for keen film fans !!One of my favourite cop thrillers....McQueen sizzles on screen !! 
The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire.  He is an excellent actor.  The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters. 
Just watched this again on TV the other day.  The acting is simply astounding.  I can feel for the actors, as the dialogue is so atrocious that it's almost beyond belief, but still.  Were they physically prevented from doing the thing that we normally think of when the word "acting" is mentioned?  I mean, blurting out some dialogue, or reciting it as if you're making an emotionless statement, that's not acting.  Seriously, this is what I expect from fifth graders appearing in their very first school play.  It's just astonishes me every time one of the characters says something.  It's like a big, dumb, obvious summary of what's going on at the moment.  "Mom, I'm not a slave any more!"  Mom:  "All your dreams have come true."  Said with all the emotion of "Oh, you remembered to pick up the potato chips from the store."  Probably 80% of the dialogue in this movie is like this.  Most first-time script readthroughs on a soap opera must be far superior to this.  Seriously, Scooby Doo has  better acting - much, much better.  I honestly can't remember ever seeing anything like this, except maybe in the worst of the worst of Sci-Fi Originals.  And even then, it's not every member of the entire cast like it is here.Then of course there's Jar Jar, the baby talking donkey.  I guess Lucas was really reaching out for the 2 and under audience.  And the big battle at the end, with a villain we hardly know, so there's really no drama there (except what can be created with CGI), and he looks downright silly in that Halloween face paint.  Oh, let's not forget the story, as Annakin's fighter gets hit, causing him to go out of control.  He ACCIDENTALLY flies into the space station, then while shooting at some droids, ACCIDENTALLY hits the main reactor, which nicely waits for him to get to a safe distance before exploding.  Good grief, it's too stupid and pathetic to even bother criticizing.Overall, this is an astonishingly bad movie, with dialogue that keeps one in a constant state of "What the **** did I just see?".  I mean, constantly,. throughout the whole film.  The action is much the same, dumb, silly, dopey.  the tone of the movie goes from "epic drama" to dopey silliness, back and forth, pretty much every thirty seconds.  Dopey droids are vwooshed in half by the increasingly boring sounds of light sabers, which now look more like a fluorescent tube than any sort of weapon.  And then they chop another two dozen in half, then another three dozen, then another dozen.  Then another two dozen. 
Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great, and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd. 
I am an average SW fan. Not a fanatic. But I did love the originals. I think people remember the original trilogy when they were like 12 and so nobody minded all the unrealistic and childish elements then. As kids, Star  Wars was flawless. The scene in "Empire Strikes Back" still irks  me, where they land inside a giant worm's stomach and of course, there is  air pressure and gravity just like on Earth, even though they are in an  asteroid! Nobody even checks to see if its safe to leave the ship.Episode I was superior in many aspects. NOTHING in the old trilogy is  anywhere near as visually stunning as Naboo and Corusant. Those two things  alone make the movie worth watching. The costumes, and the ships are much  sleeker and more believable than the originals ever were. The light saber  duel was ten times more exciting than anything in the first trio. Even John  Williams' score "Duel of the Fates" is unforgettable and far  beyond any of the original music. As for Jar Jar being annoying, yes, he  was annoying, but that didn't bother me a bit! Because he was PLAYING an  annoying character! He was SUPPOSED to be annoying. He annoyed Obi and  Qui-Gon too. That was part of the necessary comic relief to play as a foil  to the stoic Jedi.As for the Jedi acting stiff, well of course they  were, THEY ARE JEDI! Jedi aren't supposed to be emotional. And still I  really felt for Qui-Gon in the end. Anakin I must admit didn't act all too  well. But what really irks me about TPM are the small things. The robot  going; "Roger Roger" made me want to scream; "IS THIS  SATURDAY MORNING CARTOONS?" And what I hated most, the way most people  felt about Jar Jar, is how I felt about that dumb two headed announcer. I  mean he looked so cartoonish, and he sounded just like Howard Cosell! That  was simply too much of a stretch of the imagination. But the plot, in my  mind, was superb. Those who didn't like it didn't understand it maybe. It  was rather deeper than the others. Basically it involved a corrupt Galactic  Senator trying to get himself elected to a higher position by creating a  Trade Dispute with a foreign planet, putting himself as the person who  would "save the day" when in actuality he is the cause of the  dispute. You could even argue that after Episode 1 the bad guys actually  won.As for buying this VHS, I really think we should all unite as Star  Wars fans and send a clear message to Lucas that; "We are not going to  fall for these stupid business tactics! We know the only reason you won't  release TPM on DVD is because you KNOW we will buy the VHS and the  DVD." Let's not allow him to manipulate us this way, his faithful  consumers.Nick 
This movie was my first taste of Jane Austen.  I have to admit, when it first came out I was a kid, so I wrote it off as boring and didn't bother to watch.  In my teens I realized that I actually liked period drama's, and this movie quickly became a favorite of mine!The movie itself, as a period drama is first class!  Although it isn't completely faithful to the book, it is my favorite of the adaptations I've seen ('07, and '81).  The casting is superb (although 2 of the actors were a bit older than their book counterparts); and their acting leaps & bounds better than the '81!  The scenery, and stately homes are stunning!!  Also, the soundtrack fits the period, and compliments the storyline very well.Most likely, if the viewer hasn't read the book, the alterations, and missing characters shouldn't affect their opinion much._______**SPOILER ALERT**As for the (most notable) missing scenes/parts:- Willoughby's visit, and conversation with Elinor at Cleveland (during Marianne's sickness).  The movie tried to rectify it by way of Col. Brandon.  After his revealing Willoughby's seduction of his ward to Elinor, he proceeds to tell her he inquired, and has reason to believe that Willoughby's intentions were not entirely as dishonorable toward Marianne...It's not quite as satisfying as hearing it come from Willoughby himself though.- Edward's week stay, not long after they arrived (on his way back from visiting Lucy in Plymouth).  The book scene conveyed the troubled mind of Edward, and his internal conflicting feelings as regards Elinor, and Lucy.And provided a hint of what was to come, with the lock of hair seen by all in his ring (which he passed off as Fanny's, and the Dashwood sisters supposed he somehow obtained a lock of Elinor's without her knowing).- The dinner party with Mrs. Ferrars & Jennings, the Dashwood's, Steels', and Middleton's.  Not a major loss there, being that Fanny made it clear at the beginning that their mother expected Edward to marry a woman of means and fortune, otherwise suffer being disinherited.And before revealing her engagement, Lucy told Elinor she finally met Mrs. Ferrars (after being invited to stay with the J. Dashwood's in London).______The missing characters:I personally don't mind the fact that Lady Middleton (& children) were left out (the movie stated Sir John was a widower).In the book, Miss Austen describes her as "(though perfectly well bred,) she was reserved, cold, and had nothing to say for herself beyond the most common-place enquiry or remark".With that said, it wasn't that much of a loss to leave her out being that she and Mrs. (John) Dashwood were so much alike ("there was a kind of cold hearted selfishness on both sides, which mutually attracted them; and they sympathized with each other in an insipid propriety of demeanour, and a general want of understanding").In the book, all she really did was dote on her children, and play hostess.They also left out the other Miss Steel, which wasn't a big deal either.  They just had Lucy out herself to Fanny instead. 
I'm speechless, this BLU-RAY/DVD set is, without question, one of the best transfers ever. I love everything about JAWS, and the extras are great. Get it!