Question: Is the film fascinating?

I have to say I loved this film. Principally, because I empathised so much with Hawke's character that I spent at least the first hour of the film trying to make excuses for Washington's character's behaviour. Perhaps I am just slow or naive, but I genuinely could not decide whether Washington was good or evil or just human in this film until the last half hour or so, when it becomes very obvious. I was sitting there debating with myself; is that truly the only way to approach this? Is there no other? I study Criminology and as such, the film was fascinating. I make no pretence that it was a particularly deep or thought-provoking film, only that it did address issues that I am interested in.I fully admit that I am no expert on crime on the streets of L.A. and so I make no judgement about how realistic this film was, except to say that while probably overdramatised, the issues raised are extremely relevant and far more common that you might believe.

Answer: I have to say I loved this film

I have to say I loved this film .

<hl> I have to say I loved this film . <hl> Principally, because I empathised so much with Hawke's character that I spent at least the first hour of the film trying to make excuses for Washington's character's behaviour. Perhaps I am just slow or naive, but I genuinely could not decide whether Washington was good or evil or just human in this film until the last half hour or so, when it becomes very obvious. I was sitting there debating with myself; is that truly the only way to approach this? Is there no other? I study Criminology and as such, the film was fascinating. I make no pretence that it was a particularly deep or thought-provoking film, only that it did address issues that I am interested in. I fully admit that I am no expert on crime on the streets of L.A. and so I make no judgement about how realistic this film was, except to say that while probably overdramatised, the issues raised are extremely relevant and far more common that you might believe.

<hl> I have to say I loved this film <hl>. Principally, because I empathised so much with Hawke's character that I spent at least the first hour of the film trying to make excuses for Washington's character's behaviour. Perhaps I am just slow or naive, but I genuinely could not decide whether Washington was good or evil or just human in this film until the last half hour or so, when it becomes very obvious. I was sitting there debating with myself; is that truly the only way to approach this? Is there no other? I study Criminology and as such, the film was fascinating. I make no pretence that it was a particularly deep or thought-provoking film, only that it did address issues that I am interested in.I fully admit that I am no expert on crime on the streets of L.A. and so I make no judgement about how realistic this film was, except to say that while probably overdramatised, the issues raised are extremely relevant and far more common that you might believe.

<hl> I have to say I loved this film <hl> .


Question: Is it a good film?

This movie is one amazing feat.  Aside from the insanity that was involved during the making of this film, the movie looks amazing.  Each scene is memorable and filmed with such expertise.  The DVD version looks great in  the widescreen format.  The extras are nice, but what is really great is  the movie itself.  One of the most powerful films ever made, it is also one  that is a marvel to watch again and again.  Please buy it.

Answer: One of the most powerful films ever made

This movie is one amazing feat. Aside from the insanity that was involved during the making of this film, the movie looks amazing. Each scene is memorable and filmed with such expertise. The DVD version looks great in the widescreen format. The extras are nice, but what is really great is the movie itself. <hl> One of the most powerful films ever made , it is also one that is a marvel to watch again and again. <hl> Please buy it.

This movie is one amazing feat. Aside from the insanity that was involved during the making of this film, the movie looks amazing. Each scene is memorable and filmed with such expertise. The DVD version looks great in the widescreen format. The extras are nice, but what is really great is the movie itself. <hl> One of the most powerful films ever made <hl>, it is also one that is a marvel to watch again and again. Please buy it.

<hl> One of the most powerful films ever made <hl> , it is also one that is a marvel to watch again and again.


Question: How do you like the disc?

Don't get me wrong this is a great show and the boys are in fine form. Trent Reznor damn near makes your ears bleed and the sound and picture quality is awesome. Filmed during the North American tour in 2006 it's also complete in terms of its song selection and the price is reasonable. However if you're looking for some insight into the band, interviews or backstage footage it just isn't here. The concert has also been filmed from a distance which wasn't really what I had in mind when I bought this. Instead of actually seeing Trent, Josh, Alessandro or Jordie performing  for most of the DVD you get a really long shot of a small blurry person on stage and a bunch of waving arms and heads covering the bottom half of the TV screen. Occasionally someone will crowd surf past obscuring things even more. The picture quality although great is dark, grainy and smoky. Towards the end of the concert a giant gauze screen comes down and covers the stage entirely then we get to see pictures of amoebas, random animals and world atrocities but again No Band.The extras aren't much better in terms of insight just footage of the band rehearsing in 2005; Everyday Is Exactly The Same and Love Is Not Enough. We also get a couple of music videos; The Hand That Feeds and Only and a stills gallery shot during the performance.Unless you're a die-hard fan I'm sorry but I can't really recommend this and I know you'll hate me for it. But I bought this hoping to at least see the band perform or possibly speak during an interview or random backstage moment I didn't expect to once again feel like I've got a bad seat to the show. I've already seen the crowd shots, outstretched arms and tiny man on stage. Maybe we just aren't meant to get close to NIN, maybe they are an enigma.

Answer: the sound and picture quality is awesome

Don't get me wrong this is a great show and the boys are in fine form. <hl> Trent Reznor damn near makes your ears bleed and the sound and picture quality is awesome . <hl> Filmed during the North American tour in 2006 it's also complete in terms of its song selection and the price is reasonable. However if you're looking for some insight into the band, interviews or backstage footage it just isn't here. The concert has also been filmed from a distance which wasn't really what I had in mind when I bought this. Instead of actually seeing Trent, Josh, Alessandro or Jordie performing for most of the DVD you get a really long shot of a small blurry person on stage and a bunch of waving arms and heads covering the bottom half of the TV screen. Occasionally someone will crowd surf past obscuring things even more. The picture quality although great is dark, grainy and smoky. Towards the end of the concert a giant gauze screen comes down and covers the stage entirely then we get to see pictures of amoebas, random animals and world atrocities but again No Band. The extras aren't much better in terms of insight just footage of the band rehearsing in 2005; Everyday Is Exactly The Same and Love Is Not Enough. We also get a couple of music videos; The Hand That Feeds and Only and a stills gallery shot during the performance. Unless you're a die-hard fan I'm sorry but I can't really recommend this and I know you'll hate me for it. But I bought this hoping to at least see the band perform or possibly speak during an interview or random backstage moment I didn't expect to once again feel like I've got a bad seat to the show. I've already seen the crowd shots, outstretched arms and tiny man on stage. Maybe we just aren't meant to get close to NIN, maybe they are an enigma.

Don't get me wrong this is a great show and the boys are in fine form. Trent Reznor damn near makes your ears bleed and <hl> the sound and picture quality is awesome <hl>. Filmed during the North American tour in 2006 it's also complete in terms of its song selection and the price is reasonable. However if you're looking for some insight into the band, interviews or backstage footage it just isn't here. The concert has also been filmed from a distance which wasn't really what I had in mind when I bought this. Instead of actually seeing Trent, Josh, Alessandro or Jordie performing for most of the DVD you get a really long shot of a small blurry person on stage and a bunch of waving arms and heads covering the bottom half of the TV screen. Occasionally someone will crowd surf past obscuring things even more. The picture quality although great is dark, grainy and smoky. Towards the end of the concert a giant gauze screen comes down and covers the stage entirely then we get to see pictures of amoebas, random animals and world atrocities but again No Band.The extras aren't much better in terms of insight just footage of the band rehearsing in 2005; Everyday Is Exactly The Same and Love Is Not Enough. We also get a couple of music videos; The Hand That Feeds and Only and a stills gallery shot during the performance.Unless you're a die-hard fan I'm sorry but I can't really recommend this and I know you'll hate me for it. But I bought this hoping to at least see the band perform or possibly speak during an interview or random backstage moment I didn't expect to once again feel like I've got a bad seat to the show. I've already seen the crowd shots, outstretched arms and tiny man on stage. Maybe we just aren't meant to get close to NIN, maybe they are an enigma.

Trent Reznor damn near makes your ears bleed and <hl> the sound and picture quality is awesome <hl> .


Question: How is the dialogue?

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin.  The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.

Answer: finally

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. <hl> I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. <hl> So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there. But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since. Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I <hl> finally <hl> decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.


Question: Is the scenery beautiful?

I think this movie was introduced in the Arts. Not a popular one. but its so well done and quirky and funny and the scenery is amazing. I will watch it again. The father of a 40 year old man goes to France to pick up his sons body, who died from a hiking accident. you see him in flash backs. by the real father and son actors Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. He decides to walk the trail his son died on carrying his ashes and scattering them along the way. He meets up with a chain smoker strange lady, a writer with writers block and 2 others that share the trail with him off and on through out the movie. Its so funny and fun to watch. very well acted by all. I think you will like this movie. I do not recommend it for kids. A stroll though France and Spain. if for nothing else see it for the scenery. You wont be sorry.

Answer: nothing else see it for the scenery

I think this movie was introduced in the Arts. Not a popular one. but its so well done and quirky and funny and the scenery is amazing. I will watch it again. The father of a 40 year old man goes to France to pick up his sons body, who died from a hiking accident. you see him in flash backs. by the real father and son actors Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. He decides to walk the trail his son died on carrying his ashes and scattering them along the way. He meets up with a chain smoker strange lady, a writer with writers block and 2 others that share the trail with him off and on through out the movie. Its so funny and fun to watch. very well acted by all. I think you will like this movie. I do not recommend it for kids. A stroll though France and Spain. <hl> if for nothing else see it for the scenery . <hl> You wont be sorry.

I think this movie was introduced in the Arts. Not a popular one. but its so well done and quirky and funny and the scenery is amazing. I will watch it again. The father of a 40 year old man goes to France to pick up his sons body, who died from a hiking accident. you see him in flash backs. by the real father and son actors Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. He decides to walk the trail his son died on carrying his ashes and scattering them along the way. He meets up with a chain smoker strange lady, a writer with writers block and 2 others that share the trail with him off and on through out the movie. Its so funny and fun to watch. very well acted by all. I think you will like this movie. I do not recommend it for kids. A stroll though France and Spain. if for <hl> nothing else see it for the scenery <hl>. You wont be sorry.

if for <hl> nothing else see it for the scenery <hl> .


Question: How is audio?

About a month ago I bought a Samsung UN75F7100 3D LED TV set. About 2 weeks ago I bought an OPPO BDP-103 3D Blu-Ray player on Amazon. Of course, I didn't have any 3D Blu-Ray disks to play so I bought Avatar. Wow! If you got the equipment to play this you gotta' get it. Picture and sound quality are excellent and the 3D is only as good as a movie originally shot in 3D could be. I'm afraid that any other move shot in 2D and processed up to 3D will not stand up to this one. Oh. By the way. I thought the movie was great! Hope there will be a sequel. (In 3D of course.)

Answer: sound quality are excellent

About a month ago I bought a Samsung UN75F7100 3D LED TV set. About 2 weeks ago I bought an OPPO BDP-103 3D Blu-Ray player on Amazon. Of course, I didn't have any 3D Blu-Ray disks to play so I bought Avatar. Wow! If you got the equipment to play this you gotta' get it. <hl> Picture and sound quality are excellent and the 3D is only as good as a movie originally shot in 3D could be. <hl> I'm afraid that any other move shot in 2D and processed up to 3D will not stand up to this one. Oh. By the way. I thought the movie was great! Hope there will be a sequel. (In 3D of course.)

About a month ago I bought a Samsung UN75F7100 3D LED TV set. About 2 weeks ago I bought an OPPO BDP-103 3D Blu-Ray player on Amazon. Of course, I didn't have any 3D Blu-Ray disks to play so I bought Avatar. Wow! If you got the equipment to play this you gotta' get it. Picture and <hl> sound quality are excellent <hl> and the 3D is only as good as a movie originally shot in 3D could be. I'm afraid that any other move shot in 2D and processed up to 3D will not stand up to this one. Oh. By the way. I thought the movie was great! Hope there will be a sequel. (In 3D of course.)


Question: What is the quality of the movie?

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film.  I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there.  Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one.  I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start.  You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves.  What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake?  And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like.  "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered.  Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here.  I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing.  Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact.  It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus.  As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah.  Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter.  I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end.  There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal.  I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though.  The music, though, was awful.  I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie.  The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part.  There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to.  There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here.  There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times.  There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie.  It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance.  Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

Answer: Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film

<hl> From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film . <hl> I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie. I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them. I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic. Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it. When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film. All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that <hl> Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film <hl>. I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that <hl> Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film <hl> .


Question: How is the scene?

You would expect more out of Academy Award winning, Peter Jackson. But it seems we were expecting too much. The film is visually stunning. It's worth seeing just for that reason. But the overall film suffers in many areas, resulting in a mediocre remake.First of all, the casting was bad. Often the actors are very out of place in their roles, even though they give good performances. Some of the selections are very peculiar, Jack Black for instance. Very strange, although he is quite good in his role.It has some memorable moments, but the majority of the film is boring and pointless. It seems Jackson feels the need to make every movie as long as possible, and the film really suffers because of this. Even with the strange casting, the film still could have been great. The length is what really knocks it down a level. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a 3 hour long movie as much as anyone else, but the extra length was pointless. It didn't add anything to the movie.As I said before, it's worth a watch for the special effects. Just don't go in expecting an amazing film.Rating: 2 1/2 StarsThank you for your time.

Answer: The film is visually stunning

The film is visually stunning .

You would expect more out of Academy Award winning, Peter Jackson. But it seems we were expecting too much. <hl> The film is visually stunning . <hl> It's worth seeing just for that reason. But the overall film suffers in many areas, resulting in a mediocre remake. First of all, the casting was bad. Often the actors are very out of place in their roles, even though they give good performances. Some of the selections are very peculiar, Jack Black for instance. Very strange, although he is quite good in his role. It has some memorable moments, but the majority of the film is boring and pointless. It seems Jackson feels the need to make every movie as long as possible, and the film really suffers because of this. Even with the strange casting, the film still could have been great. The length is what really knocks it down a level. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a 3 hour long movie as much as anyone else, but the extra length was pointless. It didn't add anything to the movie. As I said before, it's worth a watch for the special effects. Just don't go in expecting an amazing film. Rating: 2 1/2 StarsThank you for your time.

You would expect more out of Academy Award winning, Peter Jackson. But it seems we were expecting too much. <hl> The film is visually stunning <hl>. It's worth seeing just for that reason. But the overall film suffers in many areas, resulting in a mediocre remake.First of all, the casting was bad. Often the actors are very out of place in their roles, even though they give good performances. Some of the selections are very peculiar, Jack Black for instance. Very strange, although he is quite good in his role.It has some memorable moments, but the majority of the film is boring and pointless. It seems Jackson feels the need to make every movie as long as possible, and the film really suffers because of this. Even with the strange casting, the film still could have been great. The length is what really knocks it down a level. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a 3 hour long movie as much as anyone else, but the extra length was pointless. It didn't add anything to the movie.As I said before, it's worth a watch for the special effects. Just don't go in expecting an amazing film.Rating: 2 1/2 StarsThank you for your time.

<hl> The film is visually stunning <hl> .


Question: How is the music?

Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?"Chicago" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing.Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show."Chicago", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song "Class", an audio commentary and a commerical of a "Behind-the-Scenes" look.Now, we finally get a THREE disc "Chicago" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs "Me and My Baby" and "My Own Best Friend."I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film!

Answer: is a very well written musical

<hl> Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?"Chicago" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. <hl> In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing. Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show. "Chicago", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song "Class", an audio commentary and a commerical of a "Behind-the-Scenes" look. Now, we finally get a THREE disc "Chicago" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs "Me and My Baby" and "My Own Best Friend. "I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film!

Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?"Chicago" <hl> is a very well written musical <hl> by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing.Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show."Chicago", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song "Class", an audio commentary and a commerical of a "Behind-the-Scenes" look.Now, we finally get a THREE disc "Chicago" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs "Me and My Baby" and "My Own Best Friend."I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film!


Question: Do you have other idea for the movie?

I specially liked the interesting twist to the legend of King Arthur. Good effort to add more "facts" to the script, particularly regarding the origin of knights, King Arthur and other characters of Arthurian legends, including Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere (Percival is badly missing here though). Some of this ideas has been somehow treated more recently in movies such as "The last legion". I liked the excellent depiction of saxon invaders and the effort to fit the whole story with the historical anglo-saxon invasions to British Isles. Finally, the movie has a good pace, great battle scenes, good photography, and a nice soundtrack.The bad things include the acting of Clive Owen and too much "freedom" exclamations, the "battle horse" of nowadays arguments to justify invasions all over the planet..., but you can easily skip that garbage. Finally, stop the the movie at about 4 min before ending and view the alternate ending provided on the extras. Even so, you will appreciate how Hollywood directors do not learn how to end movies.In short, King Arthur went beyond the expectations of somone whose favorite King Arthur movie still remains John Boorman's Excalibur. Plus, a good deal for the price.

Answer: Some of this ideas has been somehow treated more recently in movies such as

I specially liked the interesting twist to the legend of King Arthur. Good effort to add more "facts" to the script, particularly regarding the origin of knights, King Arthur and other characters of Arthurian legends, including Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere (Percival is badly missing here though). <hl> Some of this ideas has been somehow treated more recently in movies such as "The last legion". <hl> I liked the excellent depiction of saxon invaders and the effort to fit the whole story with the historical anglo-saxon invasions to British Isles. Finally, the movie has a good pace, great battle scenes, good photography, and a nice soundtrack. The bad things include the acting of Clive Owen and too much "freedom" exclamations, the "battle horse" of nowadays arguments to justify invasions all over the planet..., but you can easily skip that garbage. Finally, stop the the movie at about 4 min before ending and view the alternate ending provided on the extras. Even so, you will appreciate how Hollywood directors do not learn how to end movies. In short, King Arthur went beyond the expectations of somone whose favorite King Arthur movie still remains John Boorman's Excalibur. Plus, a good deal for the price.

I specially liked the interesting twist to the legend of King Arthur. Good effort to add more "facts" to the script, particularly regarding the origin of knights, King Arthur and other characters of Arthurian legends, including Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere (Percival is badly missing here though). <hl> Some of this ideas has been somehow treated more recently in movies such as <hl> "The last legion". I liked the excellent depiction of saxon invaders and the effort to fit the whole story with the historical anglo-saxon invasions to British Isles. Finally, the movie has a good pace, great battle scenes, good photography, and a nice soundtrack.The bad things include the acting of Clive Owen and too much "freedom" exclamations, the "battle horse" of nowadays arguments to justify invasions all over the planet..., but you can easily skip that garbage. Finally, stop the the movie at about 4 min before ending and view the alternate ending provided on the extras. Even so, you will appreciate how Hollywood directors do not learn how to end movies.In short, King Arthur went beyond the expectations of somone whose favorite King Arthur movie still remains John Boorman's Excalibur. Plus, a good deal for the price.


Question: How you would describe this episode edition?

Every episode is interesting. Creative characters, and very addictive series.Looking forward to Season 3!As far as rating Amazon Video goes, what a great service. I hope that Amazon Prime customers always have this because it's wonderful.

Answer: episode is interesting

Every episode is interesting .

<hl> Every episode is interesting . <hl> Creative characters, and very addictive series. Looking forward to Season 3!As far as rating Amazon Video goes, what a great service. I hope that Amazon Prime customers always have this because it's wonderful.

Every <hl> episode is interesting <hl>. Creative characters, and very addictive series.Looking forward to Season 3!As far as rating Amazon Video goes, what a great service. I hope that Amazon Prime customers always have this because it's wonderful.

Every <hl> episode is interesting <hl> .


Question: How is the quality of episode?

This set collects some of the best shows to air on television.  The set also comes with funky retro packaging that would make any self-respecting geek drool in a way that will insure their being single until the next season of Star Trek is released (giving them more time to enjoy this collection).  Sadly, Paramount is squeezing us Trekkies/Trekkers/Addicts like members of the mob would squeeze an inner-city grocery-store, with their outrageous prices.  $85.00 AFTER a 35% discount?  Ironic, being that in the show they're selling, money is no longer used.  Another thing that's bugged me in ALL the Trek DVD sets is the horrendous chapter break that happens after opening credits.  It jumps you about five minutes into the actual episode.  There is no way to skip the credit sequence, without missing a good chunk of the show.  Sure, it's fun the first 135 you narrate along with Captain Kirk talking about the Final Frontier, but it gets old by the 140th session, unless you really start adding variety by sucking in a balloon full of helium before speaking the words William ... Shatner ... reads ... with ... such ... high ... melodrama.  The picture quality is decent.  Probably not what you'd expect for the price.  Paramount didn't send in a restoration team to make this look as pretty as something released today should.  You know something wasn't done right with this set when these shows from the 60s look WORSE than Chaplin movies from the 20s do, in the Chaplin Collection (now THAT'S restoration).  What makes this worth the purchase are the compelling stories, great chemistry between the cast, nifty mini-skirts, cheesy alien outfits and finally getting to own the original episodes on DVD.  Is that worth $85.00, when you can still watch any of these shows for free on television?  It's your call.  At these prices, I've only purchased season 3, 4 and 5 of The Next Generation and this set of The Original Series.  I've rented each season of Deep Space Nine (at a more reasonable price, I would have bought them) and stopped, pointed and laughed wildly at the first three seasons of Voyager, whenever I pass them in the store.  You make the call and make sure you make the right one, because the execs at Paramount would just assume stomp a Tribble with bare feet than they would issue you a refund because you feel ripped-off, after opening the set and realizing you're basically getting a sort of washed-out collection of episodes in neat packaging and nothing more (the extras are weak).5 stars for the shows.  2 stars for the value.  3 stars overall.

Answer: the best shows to air on television

<hl> This set collects some of the best shows to air on television . <hl> The set also comes with funky retro packaging that would make any self-respecting geek drool in a way that will insure their being single until the next season of Star Trek is released (giving them more time to enjoy this collection). Sadly, Paramount is squeezing us Trekkies/Trekkers/Addicts like members of the mob would squeeze an inner-city grocery-store, with their outrageous prices. $85.00 AFTER a 35% discount? Ironic, being that in the show they're selling, money is no longer used. Another thing that's bugged me in ALL the Trek DVD sets is the horrendous chapter break that happens after opening credits. It jumps you about five minutes into the actual episode. There is no way to skip the credit sequence, without missing a good chunk of the show. Sure, it's fun the first 135 you narrate along with Captain Kirk talking about the Final Frontier, but it gets old by the 140th session, unless you really start adding variety by sucking in a balloon full of helium before speaking the words William ... Shatner ... reads ... with ... such ... high ... melodrama. The picture quality is decent. Probably not what you'd expect for the price. Paramount didn't send in a restoration team to make this look as pretty as something released today should. You know something wasn't done right with this set when these shows from the 60s look WORSE than Chaplin movies from the 20s do, in the Chaplin Collection (now THAT'S restoration). What makes this worth the purchase are the compelling stories, great chemistry between the cast, nifty mini-skirts, cheesy alien outfits and finally getting to own the original episodes on DVD. Is that worth $85.00, when you can still watch any of these shows for free on television? It's your call. At these prices, I've only purchased season 3, 4 and 5 of The Next Generation and this set of The Original Series. I've rented each season of Deep Space Nine (at a more reasonable price, I would have bought them) and stopped, pointed and laughed wildly at the first three seasons of Voyager, whenever I pass them in the store. You make the call and make sure you make the right one, because the execs at Paramount would just assume stomp a Tribble with bare feet than they would issue you a refund because you feel ripped-off, after opening the set and realizing you're basically getting a sort of washed-out collection of episodes in neat packaging and nothing more (the extras are weak).5 stars for the shows. 2 stars for the value. 3 stars overall.

This set collects some of <hl> the best shows to air on television <hl>. The set also comes with funky retro packaging that would make any self-respecting geek drool in a way that will insure their being single until the next season of Star Trek is released (giving them more time to enjoy this collection). Sadly, Paramount is squeezing us Trekkies/Trekkers/Addicts like members of the mob would squeeze an inner-city grocery-store, with their outrageous prices. $85.00 AFTER a 35% discount? Ironic, being that in the show they're selling, money is no longer used. Another thing that's bugged me in ALL the Trek DVD sets is the horrendous chapter break that happens after opening credits. It jumps you about five minutes into the actual episode. There is no way to skip the credit sequence, without missing a good chunk of the show. Sure, it's fun the first 135 you narrate along with Captain Kirk talking about the Final Frontier, but it gets old by the 140th session, unless you really start adding variety by sucking in a balloon full of helium before speaking the words William ... Shatner ... reads ... with ... such ... high ... melodrama. The picture quality is decent. Probably not what you'd expect for the price. Paramount didn't send in a restoration team to make this look as pretty as something released today should. You know something wasn't done right with this set when these shows from the 60s look WORSE than Chaplin movies from the 20s do, in the Chaplin Collection (now THAT'S restoration). What makes this worth the purchase are the compelling stories, great chemistry between the cast, nifty mini-skirts, cheesy alien outfits and finally getting to own the original episodes on DVD. Is that worth $85.00, when you can still watch any of these shows for free on television? It's your call. At these prices, I've only purchased season 3, 4 and 5 of The Next Generation and this set of The Original Series. I've rented each season of Deep Space Nine (at a more reasonable price, I would have bought them) and stopped, pointed and laughed wildly at the first three seasons of Voyager, whenever I pass them in the store. You make the call and make sure you make the right one, because the execs at Paramount would just assume stomp a Tribble with bare feet than they would issue you a refund because you feel ripped-off, after opening the set and realizing you're basically getting a sort of washed-out collection of episodes in neat packaging and nothing more (the extras are weak).5 stars for the shows. 2 stars for the value. 3 stars overall.

This set collects some of <hl> the best shows to air on television <hl> .


Question: What about the film?

Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the "supposive" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that "gay" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy "so" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film.

Answer: this film wasn't so much funny as stupid

Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the "supposive" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that "gay" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy "so" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. <hl> u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid . <hl> & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film.

Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the "supposive" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that "gay" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy "so" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! <hl> this film wasn't so much funny as stupid <hl>. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film.

u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! <hl> this film wasn't so much funny as stupid <hl> .


Question: Was the story complex?

This is without a doubt the best feature film anime around.  All the action and suspense you come to expect in this genre.  The storyline is intriguing, to say the least.  You will not regret getting this movie,  watching it numerous times.

Answer: The storyline is intriguing, to say the least

This is without a doubt the best feature film anime around. All the action and suspense you come to expect in this genre. <hl> The storyline is intriguing, to say the least . <hl> You will not regret getting this movie, watching it numerous times.

This is without a doubt the best feature film anime around. All the action and suspense you come to expect in this genre. <hl> The storyline is intriguing, to say the least <hl>. You will not regret getting this movie, watching it numerous times.

<hl> The storyline is intriguing, to say the least <hl> .


Question: How was its effect?

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

Answer: the special effects are terrible

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. <hl> The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible , even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. <hl> What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; <hl> the special effects are terrible <hl>, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

The story is choppy and confusing; <hl> the special effects are terrible <hl> , even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions.


Question: What is your opinion about cinematography of this film?

I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it.  I didn't even know it was based on a video game.  I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.  The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style.  The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world.  Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film.  Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.

Answer: I marginally liked this film

<hl> I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. <hl> I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.

<hl> I marginally liked this film <hl> when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.


Question: How is the show?

A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show.  Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent.  All the episodes are funny.  Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens).  All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

Answer: first season of a very funny show

<hl> A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show . <hl> Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

A great (albeit short) <hl> first season of a very funny show <hl>. Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

A great (albeit short) <hl> first season of a very funny show <hl> .


Question: How is the film?

Answer: film where his directorial style worked in perfect synergy with mainstream Hollywood. Many of his other earlier films, including BEETLEJUICE (1988), EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1993), ED WOOD (1994), and ironically BATMAN RETURNS (1992) are 100% TIM BURTON! They are all great in that Burtonesque way. While Burton's first Batman film BATMAN has obvious Burton touches: odd and disturbing characters, dark tone, neo-noirish look, the film still manages to be generally accessible to the mass audience. It moves at a fast, breezy pace and has an epic, Hollywood feel to it, with a satisfying conclusion. But that, in this case, is not a bad thing! I have re-watched this entertaining flick so many times it isn't funny! It just works. Can't say that for many of the superhero films in this new PC, uninspired generation of films.I actually saw BATMAN (1989) when it first came out in movie theatres and was blown away by it's originality and scope...still am. Even more so now since it holds up 20+ years later as great entertainment. In retrospect, Michael Keaton was the perfect choice to play the fractured, flawed antiheroic Bruce Wayne AKA Batman. But I always felt he was the right choice! Keaton captures the guarded loneliness of the Bruce Wayne character, while still being very convincing as a tough guy who can hold his own when donning the cape and cowl! Mr. Burton...you made the right choice!The other inspired (and perhaps more obvious) choice was casting the legendary Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier AKA The Joker. Nicholson is convincing as high-level "yes man" thug Napier who through a nasty accident becomes facially scarred and assumes the Joker persona. And Nicholson really looks like The Joker in this! He has so many memorable lines that I think about all the time. The hero-villain chemistry between he and Keaton is electric.Kim Basinger (at her most gorgeous!) admirably plays nosy photojournalist Vicki Vale, who arrives in Gotham City to unlock the secret of the mysterious Caped Crusader who has been "terrorizing" low level criminals throughout the city. She ends up falling in love with Bruce Wayne (lucky bastard!). Basinger is the weakest link of the main actors, but she still does a good job of emoting, being simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by Batman and Joker's antics. She screams a lot, but look at the freaks she's dealing with! Can you blame her?The solid supporting cast includes Michael Gough (wonderful turn as Alfred, Bruce's ever-so-reliable and dependable butler and caretaker), Robert Wuhl (in an energetic turn as Vicki's fellow reporter Alex Knox), Billy Dee Williams (as DA Harvey Dent), and Pat Hingle (as world-weary Police Commissioner Gordon). In particular, Keaton and Gough have an effortless chemistry as though they have been close their whole lives. Gough came back for Schumacher's cartoonish campy films and he had none of the chemistry with either Kilmer or Clooney that he had with Keaton in the Burton ones. It was weird watching Gough's Alfred interact with those tepid versions of Bruce Wayne.As previously stated, I am amazed at how Burton's style fused perfectly with more conventional Hollywood touches and created something special out of it. It could have been a monumental failure, but instead ended up being a template for all future superhero films.

<hl> BATMAN (1989) is the one Tim Burton film where his directorial style worked in perfect synergy with mainstream Hollywood. Many of his other earlier films, including BEETLEJUICE (1988), EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1993), ED WOOD (1994), and ironically BATMAN RETURNS (1992) are 100% TIM BURTON! They are all great in that Burtonesque way. While Burton's first Batman film BATMAN has obvious Burton touches: odd and disturbing characters, dark tone, neo-noirish look, the film still manages to be generally accessible to the mass audience. It moves at a fast, breezy pace and has an epic, Hollywood feel to it, with a satisfying conclusion. But that, in this case, is not a bad thing! I have re-watched this entertaining flick so many times it isn't funny! It just works. Can't say that for many of the superhero films in this new PC, uninspired generation of films.I actually saw BATMAN (1989) when it first came out in movie theatres and was blown away by it's originality and scope...still am. Even more so now since it holds up 20+ years later as great entertainment. In retrospect, Michael Keaton was the perfect choice to play the fractured, flawed antiheroic Bruce Wayne AKA Batman. But I always felt he was the right choice! Keaton captures the guarded loneliness of the Bruce Wayne character, while still being very convincing as a tough guy who can hold his own when donning the cape and cowl! Mr. Burton...you made the right choice!The other inspired (and perhaps more obvious) choice was casting the legendary Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier AKA The Joker. Nicholson is convincing as high-level "yes man" thug Napier who through a nasty accident becomes facially scarred and assumes the Joker persona. And Nicholson really looks like The Joker in this! He has so many memorable lines that I think about all the time. The hero-villain chemistry between he and Keaton is electric.Kim Basinger (at her most gorgeous!) admirably plays nosy photojournalist Vicki Vale, who arrives in Gotham City to unlock the secret of the mysterious Caped Crusader who has been "terrorizing" low level criminals throughout the city. She ends up falling in love with Bruce Wayne (lucky bastard!). Basinger is the weakest link of the main actors, but she still does a good job of emoting, being simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by Batman and Joker's antics. She screams a lot, but look at the freaks she's dealing with! Can you blame her?The solid supporting cast includes Michael Gough (wonderful turn as Alfred, Bruce's ever-so-reliable and dependable butler and caretaker), Robert Wuhl (in an energetic turn as Vicki's fellow reporter Alex Knox), Billy Dee Williams (as DA Harvey Dent), and Pat Hingle (as world-weary Police Commissioner Gordon). In particular, Keaton and Gough have an effortless chemistry as though they have been close their whole lives. Gough came back for Schumacher's cartoonish campy films and he had none of the chemistry with either Kilmer or Clooney that he had with Keaton in the Burton ones. It was weird watching Gough's Alfred interact with those tepid versions of Bruce Wayne.As previously stated, I am amazed at how Burton's style fused perfectly with more conventional Hollywood touches and created something special out of it. It could have been a monumental failure, but instead ended up being a template for all future superhero films. <hl>

BATMAN (1989) is the one Tim Burton <hl> film where his directorial style worked in perfect synergy with mainstream Hollywood. Many of his other earlier films, including BEETLEJUICE (1988), EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1993), ED WOOD (1994), and ironically BATMAN RETURNS (1992) are 100% TIM BURTON! They are all great in that Burtonesque way. While Burton's first Batman film BATMAN has obvious Burton touches: odd and disturbing characters, dark tone, neo-noirish look, the film still manages to be generally accessible to the mass audience. It moves at a fast, breezy pace and has an epic, Hollywood feel to it, with a satisfying conclusion. But that, in this case, is not a bad thing! I have re-watched this entertaining flick so many times it isn't funny! It just works. Can't say that for many of the superhero films in this new PC, uninspired generation of films.I actually saw BATMAN (1989) when it first came out in movie theatres and was blown away by it's originality and scope...still am. Even more so now since it holds up 20+ years later as great entertainment. In retrospect, Michael Keaton was the perfect choice to play the fractured, flawed antiheroic Bruce Wayne AKA Batman. But I always felt he was the right choice! Keaton captures the guarded loneliness of the Bruce Wayne character, while still being very convincing as a tough guy who can hold his own when donning the cape and cowl! Mr. Burton...you made the right choice!The other inspired (and perhaps more obvious) choice was casting the legendary Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier AKA The Joker. Nicholson is convincing as high-level "yes man" thug Napier who through a nasty accident becomes facially scarred and assumes the Joker persona. And Nicholson really looks like The Joker in this! He has so many memorable lines that I think about all the time. The hero-villain chemistry between he and Keaton is electric.Kim Basinger (at her most gorgeous!) admirably plays nosy photojournalist Vicki Vale, who arrives in Gotham City to unlock the secret of the mysterious Caped Crusader who has been "terrorizing" low level criminals throughout the city. She ends up falling in love with Bruce Wayne (lucky bastard!). Basinger is the weakest link of the main actors, but she still does a good job of emoting, being simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by Batman and Joker's antics. She screams a lot, but look at the freaks she's dealing with! Can you blame her?The solid supporting cast includes Michael Gough (wonderful turn as Alfred, Bruce's ever-so-reliable and dependable butler and caretaker), Robert Wuhl (in an energetic turn as Vicki's fellow reporter Alex Knox), Billy Dee Williams (as DA Harvey Dent), and Pat Hingle (as world-weary Police Commissioner Gordon). In particular, Keaton and Gough have an effortless chemistry as though they have been close their whole lives. Gough came back for Schumacher's cartoonish campy films and he had none of the chemistry with either Kilmer or Clooney that he had with Keaton in the Burton ones. It was weird watching Gough's Alfred interact with those tepid versions of Bruce Wayne.As previously stated, I am amazed at how Burton's style fused perfectly with more conventional Hollywood touches and created something special out of it. It could have been a monumental failure, but instead ended up being a template for all future superhero films. <hl>


Question: Is that film good?

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

Answer: The movie is entertaining

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. <hl> The movie is entertaining , but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist. <hl> The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion. The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being. William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. <hl> The movie is entertaining <hl>, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

<hl> The movie is entertaining <hl> , but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.


Question: How fun  is the story?

There have been a lot of half-crazed movie characters in film history, you know the one; the kind of vaguely insane person that the movie truly revolves around, with the other characters only there to provide stark contrast with their recognizably sane posture.  They're also there to wonder aloud to themselves and each other, "What's the matter with him?"  To which someone usually responds, "I don't know, but there's something about him that I like."  The thing about those movies (a lot of them came out of the 80's and early 90's, I know because in school we all imitated them), was the the core of those movies was the zany character exploration, and that was just about it.  See what kind of situations we can cook up and then throw this crazed, witty personae in there and see what happens.What's different about Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jack Sparrow in particular, is that the world he inhabits gave birth to him.  In the crazed personae movie--the nut-job seems to come out of nowhere, completely unexpected, which is half the fun but also half the shortcoming.  In Pirates of the Carribean, we expect Jack Sparrow to come sailing out of the horizon and to suddenly arrive in that world, and what a world!I think what lends Sparrow such credibility is his mixture of characterization.  Yes, he's wild and I suppose "free," but there are moments where he gets serious (saluting the dead pirates), moments when he has to act and can pull through (like jumping in to save Elizabeth), moments where he has to educate (telling Will Turner the truth about his father).  When this happens, we give the character Sparrow something we don't give the hollow, crazed personae; respect.  Give Johnny Depp all the credit for being able to switch between these modes as well; being serious and respectable while maintaining the aura of Jack Sparrow; that he'll stick his tongue out at us and run off with the gold at any moment, but not without his effects.The world of "Black Pearl" is lush and surprising.  I didn't expect to believe the world of pirates, where all the exsists is ocean and the few ports that you can sail to.  Come to think of it, we only really see three locales during the whole movie, and the rest of it is on water.  How'd they pull that off?  My favorite scene is in the pirate pub where the bar-fight is perpetual; Jack Sparrow and his cohort (can't remember his name) sit and talk about ports, treasures, old pirates, schemes, boats, etc. all in the warm glow of candles and wood as they chug ale.  A pirate's life for me!Geoffery Rush, brilliant as ever.  When he says, "Too long have I been without the taste of food or the comfort of a woman" I believe him.  The man is a pirate outright, but in his eyes you can see the years of torment on a man from the curse piling up on him slowly.  Notice too how he rolls his eyes perfectly when he's at the moment of breaking the curse, and somehow Jack Sparrow convinces him not to.  How?  Maybe "Curse of the Black Pearl" is really how Jack Sparrow has dogged Barbossa his whole career.The supporting cast is good, even Orlando Bloom who is still in Legolas mode.  Even though he played up Will Turner nicely as a bright-eyed, talented, somewhat intense young man (who has serious anxieties about his lineage, but why not?  It would bar him from his chances of Elizabeth), I did keep expecting him to jump up and go, "He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn!"  He does have a great moment where he jumps onto a ship with Sparrow and goes, "Aye, avast!" to which he's promptly laughed at.

Answer: crazed movie

<hl> There have been a lot of half- crazed movie characters in film history, you know the one; the kind of vaguely insane person that the movie truly revolves around, with the other characters only there to provide stark contrast with their recognizably sane posture. <hl> They're also there to wonder aloud to themselves and each other, "What's the matter with him?" To which someone usually responds, "I don't know, but there's something about him that I like." The thing about those movies (a lot of them came out of the 80's and early 90's, I know because in school we all imitated them), was the the core of those movies was the zany character exploration, and that was just about it. See what kind of situations we can cook up and then throw this crazed, witty personae in there and see what happens. What's different about Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jack Sparrow in particular, is that the world he inhabits gave birth to him. In the crazed personae movie--the nut-job seems to come out of nowhere, completely unexpected, which is half the fun but also half the shortcoming. In Pirates of the Carribean, we expect Jack Sparrow to come sailing out of the horizon and to suddenly arrive in that world, and what a world!I think what lends Sparrow such credibility is his mixture of characterization. Yes, he's wild and I suppose "free," but there are moments where he gets serious (saluting the dead pirates), moments when he has to act and can pull through (like jumping in to save Elizabeth), moments where he has to educate (telling Will Turner the truth about his father). When this happens, we give the character Sparrow something we don't give the hollow, crazed personae; respect. Give Johnny Depp all the credit for being able to switch between these modes as well; being serious and respectable while maintaining the aura of Jack Sparrow; that he'll stick his tongue out at us and run off with the gold at any moment, but not without his effects. The world of "Black Pearl" is lush and surprising. I didn't expect to believe the world of pirates, where all the exsists is ocean and the few ports that you can sail to. Come to think of it, we only really see three locales during the whole movie, and the rest of it is on water. How'd they pull that off? My favorite scene is in the pirate pub where the bar-fight is perpetual; Jack Sparrow and his cohort (can't remember his name) sit and talk about ports, treasures, old pirates, schemes, boats, etc. all in the warm glow of candles and wood as they chug ale. A pirate's life for me!Geoffery Rush, brilliant as ever. When he says, "Too long have I been without the taste of food or the comfort of a woman" I believe him. The man is a pirate outright, but in his eyes you can see the years of torment on a man from the curse piling up on him slowly. Notice too how he rolls his eyes perfectly when he's at the moment of breaking the curse, and somehow Jack Sparrow convinces him not to. How? Maybe "Curse of the Black Pearl" is really how Jack Sparrow has dogged Barbossa his whole career. The supporting cast is good, even Orlando Bloom who is still in Legolas mode. Even though he played up Will Turner nicely as a bright-eyed, talented, somewhat intense young man (who has serious anxieties about his lineage, but why not? It would bar him from his chances of Elizabeth), I did keep expecting him to jump up and go, "He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn!" He does have a great moment where he jumps onto a ship with Sparrow and goes, "Aye, avast!" to which he's promptly laughed at.

There have been a lot of half-<hl> crazed movie <hl> characters in film history, you know the one; the kind of vaguely insane person that the movie truly revolves around, with the other characters only there to provide stark contrast with their recognizably sane posture. They're also there to wonder aloud to themselves and each other, "What's the matter with him?" To which someone usually responds, "I don't know, but there's something about him that I like." The thing about those movies (a lot of them came out of the 80's and early 90's, I know because in school we all imitated them), was the the core of those movies was the zany character exploration, and that was just about it. See what kind of situations we can cook up and then throw this crazed, witty personae in there and see what happens.What's different about Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jack Sparrow in particular, is that the world he inhabits gave birth to him. In the crazed personae movie--the nut-job seems to come out of nowhere, completely unexpected, which is half the fun but also half the shortcoming. In Pirates of the Carribean, we expect Jack Sparrow to come sailing out of the horizon and to suddenly arrive in that world, and what a world!I think what lends Sparrow such credibility is his mixture of characterization. Yes, he's wild and I suppose "free," but there are moments where he gets serious (saluting the dead pirates), moments when he has to act and can pull through (like jumping in to save Elizabeth), moments where he has to educate (telling Will Turner the truth about his father). When this happens, we give the character Sparrow something we don't give the hollow, crazed personae; respect. Give Johnny Depp all the credit for being able to switch between these modes as well; being serious and respectable while maintaining the aura of Jack Sparrow; that he'll stick his tongue out at us and run off with the gold at any moment, but not without his effects.The world of "Black Pearl" is lush and surprising. I didn't expect to believe the world of pirates, where all the exsists is ocean and the few ports that you can sail to. Come to think of it, we only really see three locales during the whole movie, and the rest of it is on water. How'd they pull that off? My favorite scene is in the pirate pub where the bar-fight is perpetual; Jack Sparrow and his cohort (can't remember his name) sit and talk about ports, treasures, old pirates, schemes, boats, etc. all in the warm glow of candles and wood as they chug ale. A pirate's life for me!Geoffery Rush, brilliant as ever. When he says, "Too long have I been without the taste of food or the comfort of a woman" I believe him. The man is a pirate outright, but in his eyes you can see the years of torment on a man from the curse piling up on him slowly. Notice too how he rolls his eyes perfectly when he's at the moment of breaking the curse, and somehow Jack Sparrow convinces him not to. How? Maybe "Curse of the Black Pearl" is really how Jack Sparrow has dogged Barbossa his whole career.The supporting cast is good, even Orlando Bloom who is still in Legolas mode. Even though he played up Will Turner nicely as a bright-eyed, talented, somewhat intense young man (who has serious anxieties about his lineage, but why not? It would bar him from his chances of Elizabeth), I did keep expecting him to jump up and go, "He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn!" He does have a great moment where he jumps onto a ship with Sparrow and goes, "Aye, avast!" to which he's promptly laughed at.

There have been a lot of half- <hl> crazed movie <hl> characters in film history, you know the one; the kind of vaguely insane person that the movie truly revolves around, with the other characters only there to provide stark contrast with their recognizably sane posture.


Question: How is movie?

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good.

Answer: the movie was very graphic

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. <hl> Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker <hl> but the concept was good.

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that <hl> the movie was very graphic <hl> as far the joker but the concept was good.