Question: How is the picture?

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

Answer: GREAT movies

<hl> 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. <hl> 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

<hl> GREAT movies <hl>, 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

<hl> GREAT movies <hl> , 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.


Question: How is the scene?

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.

Answer: to reclaim

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> to reclaim <hl> 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.


Question: How is the movie?

** 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.

Answer: the best in the series and this movie was simply amazing

** 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. <hl> I did not consider this book the best in the series and this movie was simply amazing . <hl> I can't wait to see what great films will be made of Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

** 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 <hl> the best in the series and this movie was simply amazing <hl>. I can't wait to see what great films will be made of Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

I did not consider this book <hl> the best in the series and this movie was simply amazing <hl> .


Question: Is a good film?

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.

Answer: would have make it a much better movie

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. <hl> To me it would have make it a much better movie . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> would have make it a much better movie <hl>. 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.

To me it <hl> would have make it a much better movie <hl> .


Question: Does at least one sure of the background of her new employee?

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!

Answer: The film provides the necessary background

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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!

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. <hl> The film provides the necessary background <hl> 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!


Question: Is a good sequel?

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!

Answer: pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel

Wow! <hl> Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel , X2, was actually better! <hl> 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!

Wow! Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was <hl> pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel <hl>, 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!

Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was <hl> pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel <hl> , X2, was actually better!


Question: How is the movie?

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.

Answer: this movie is like

<hl> Well, this movie is like any other ever made. <hl> 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.

Well, <hl> this movie is like <hl> 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.


Question: How is movie?

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

Answer: This movie is gripping hardcore

<hl> This movie is gripping hardcore , shocking, scary, and very emotional. <hl> 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

<hl> This movie is gripping hardcore <hl>, 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

<hl> This movie is gripping hardcore <hl> , shocking, scary, and very emotional.


Question: What is write?

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.

Answer: In the mode of Dowton Abbey

This series is fun to watch and enjoyable. <hl> In the mode of Dowton Abbey , the period dresses and suits are fun to watch and enjoy. <hl> 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.

This series is fun to watch and enjoyable. <hl> In the mode of Dowton Abbey <hl>, 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.

<hl> In the mode of Dowton Abbey <hl> , the period dresses and suits are fun to watch and enjoy.


Question: Is the image fully charged?

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!

Answer: My granddaughter loved this movie

My granddaughter loved this movie .

<hl> My granddaughter loved this movie . <hl> 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!

<hl> My granddaughter loved this movie <hl>. 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!

<hl> My granddaughter loved this movie <hl> .


Question: How is the actor?

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.

Answer: directors and actors

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.) <hl> Kudos to the writers, producers, directors and actors for a job superbly done. <hl>

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, <hl> directors and actors <hl> for a job superbly done.


Question: Does this movie have any scary part?

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!

Answer: The way the camera ventures around the place is totally freaky

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. <hl> The way the camera ventures around the place is totally freaky , cause you have no idea whats going to be around the next corner... <hl> 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!

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. <hl> The way the camera ventures around the place is totally freaky <hl>, 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!

<hl> The way the camera ventures around the place is totally freaky <hl> , cause you have no idea whats going to be around the next corner...


Question: What's the greatest scene?

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.

Answer: when Kong escapes the theatre and finally sees the Girl again in NYC

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> when Kong escapes the theatre and finally sees the Girl again in NYC <hl>, 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.

Such as <hl> when Kong escapes the theatre and finally sees the Girl again in NYC <hl> , walking smokily down a blue lit street in pitch black winter.


Question: How can I find extra interesting movies?

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!***

Answer: 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!***

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. <hl> 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!*** <hl>


Question: How can the plot be described as?

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!

Answer: the worst movies ever made

<hl> Road House is one of the worst movies ever made --it's poorly acted, badly written and sloppily directed. <hl> 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!

Road House is one of <hl> the worst movies ever made <hl>--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!

Road House is one of <hl> the worst movies ever made <hl> --it's poorly acted, badly written and sloppily directed.


Question: How is part?

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

Answer: as well, is surprisingly good. There are precious

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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

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, <hl> as well, is surprisingly good. There are precious <hl> 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


Question: How is the effect?

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.

Answer: The effects are cheesy

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. <hl> The effects are cheesy (although, at times, brilliant - The Sea of Fire near the beginning is still eye candy for me). <hl> 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.

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.<hl> The effects are cheesy <hl> (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.


Question: What is the plot of the scene?

Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed.

Answer: the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed

<hl> Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed . <hl>

Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly <hl> the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed <hl>.

Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly <hl> the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed <hl> .