Question: How good was the music?

"Pocahontas" was not exactly what I expected from Disney.  (For one thing, the princess doesn't wind up with the "prince" -- a little closer to Pocahontas' real life story).  That said ... the music, animation, and so on are all outstanding.  One of the real surprises in this film is Mel Gibson's talent as a voice actor and *singer* - he's extremely good.  Gibson describes himself as a "shower-only singer," and I think that is a real misnomer.Pocahontas has her amusing animal friends, Flit (the humming bird) and a truly humorous little raccoon whose name escapes me at the moment.  It is because of her friendship with these animals that she works so hard to convince John Smith (Gibson) of the importance of living in harmony with the land.I think the film carries a couple of good messages, along with its high entertainment value.  The first is, of course, to live in harmony with the land.  The second is that "savage" is often defined by which side of the line you happen to stand on - people often see those who are different as "wrong."  "Pocahontas" goes a long way toward teaching young people the importance of shedding that viewpoint.

Answer: That said ... the music

"Pocahontas" was not exactly what I expected from Disney. (For one thing, the princess doesn't wind up with the "prince" -- a little closer to Pocahontas' real life story). <hl> That said ... the music , animation, and so on are all outstanding. <hl> One of the real surprises in this film is Mel Gibson's talent as a voice actor and *singer* - he's extremely good. Gibson describes himself as a "shower-only singer," and I think that is a real misnomer. Pocahontas has her amusing animal friends, Flit (the humming bird) and a truly humorous little raccoon whose name escapes me at the moment. It is because of her friendship with these animals that she works so hard to convince John Smith (Gibson) of the importance of living in harmony with the land. I think the film carries a couple of good messages, along with its high entertainment value. The first is, of course, to live in harmony with the land. The second is that "savage" is often defined by which side of the line you happen to stand on - people often see those who are different as "wrong." "Pocahontas" goes a long way toward teaching young people the importance of shedding that viewpoint.

"Pocahontas" was not exactly what I expected from Disney. (For one thing, the princess doesn't wind up with the "prince" -- a little closer to Pocahontas' real life story). <hl> That said ... the music <hl>, animation, and so on are all outstanding. One of the real surprises in this film is Mel Gibson's talent as a voice actor and *singer* - he's extremely good. Gibson describes himself as a "shower-only singer," and I think that is a real misnomer.Pocahontas has her amusing animal friends, Flit (the humming bird) and a truly humorous little raccoon whose name escapes me at the moment. It is because of her friendship with these animals that she works so hard to convince John Smith (Gibson) of the importance of living in harmony with the land.I think the film carries a couple of good messages, along with its high entertainment value. The first is, of course, to live in harmony with the land. The second is that "savage" is often defined by which side of the line you happen to stand on - people often see those who are different as "wrong." "Pocahontas" goes a long way toward teaching young people the importance of shedding that viewpoint.

<hl> That said ... the music <hl> , animation, and so on are all outstanding.


Question: How were the stunts?

Answer: Action was fun

<hl> Action was fun to see but storyline was blah and of even their cheesy lines you expect to hear were poorly placed. <hl>

<hl> Action was fun <hl> to see but storyline was blah and of even their cheesy lines you expect to hear were poorly placed.


Question: Is the music cool?

RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on  A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to.

Answer: evolve musically and it very cool

RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is <hl> that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to. <hl>

RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they <hl> evolve musically and it very cool <hl> to listen to.


Question: How was the film?

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case.  First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance.  However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting.  The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes.  I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice.  Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence.  Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role.  I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.'  After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film.  Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life.  Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise.  The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically.  I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.

Answer: The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic. Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story. <hl> The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically . <hl> I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.<hl> The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically <hl>. I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.

<hl> The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically <hl> .


Question: What does the movie have?

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.

Answer: It is a very full-toned and haunting picture

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself. Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately. The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy. I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. <hl> It is a very full-toned and haunting picture . <hl> To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. <hl> It is a very full-toned and haunting picture <hl>. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.

<hl> It is a very full-toned and haunting picture <hl> .


Question: What is your favorite collection?

The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

Answer: If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words

<hl> The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words . <hl> Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! <hl> If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words <hl>. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! <hl> If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words <hl> .


Question: Do you think humor is good?

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.

Answer: the first time and now

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? <hl> I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best. <hl> I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh <hl> the first time and now <hl> it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.


Question: How is the show?

Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon's shows have. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it.

Answer: 's shows have

<hl> Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon 's shows have . <hl> It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season. After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business. And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week. Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show. I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it.

Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon<hl> 's shows have <hl>. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it.

Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon <hl> 's shows have <hl> .


Question: How was the scene?

To my surprise, T3  didn't turn out to be as bad as I thought it would have been.  I had low expectations of this film due to all the factors that gave reasoning for this to be a bad film such as the absenses of James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.  But after I saw this film, I was BLOWN AWAY from all those thoughts.  This film was terrific!  It would have been nice Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong (the kid who played John Conner in T2)to return but not everything is perfect in life.  This easily one of Arnold's best movies he has made in years.  But compared to the first two, this is the worst Terminator movie yet, but it is still a mind blowing action-packed thrill ride.  Atnold's back and better then ever and has his mind set on a new intense adventure as a machine.  Anyway, here is the plot..It has now been ten yrs since skynet was blown away.  Sarah Conner is now deceased and John Conner is now basically doing whatever he can to avoid the life he was destined for.  He basically does what he can to stay alive and keeps traveling hundreds of miles but really has no idea where he is going.  Nut it turns out that blowing up Skynet doesn't prevent Judgement Day; it only postponed it.  That means that the Terminators will still exist, and now there is one a new and very advanced one.  It is called the T-X (Terminatrix), played by Kristanna Loken who is wicked hot!  She is Faster, stronger,and can control and heavy machinery with her mind .  As in she can drive a car, but she won't be in the car, she will be somewhere else while her mind will be controlloing the car.  This Terminator is sent to do the obvious-Kill John Conner.  But that is not all.  Conner isn't going to be the only general in the war against the machines in the future.  There will be other generals in the war and the T-X must kill everynody who will become a general in the future right now so they won't be able to fight in the war.  Also a T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger).  It is slighlty more advanced then the T-800's that were sent back in the first 2 films.  His mission is of course protect Conner and his fri9end Kate Brewster (Clare Danes).  It seems that Brewster's father is the man who will create Skynet and is almost finished with the project.  Now it is up to them to stop that from happening and before the T-X can get to them and terminate them.  One other thing, Earl Boen makes a small reappearence as Dr. Silberman (the guy who treated Sarah Conner in the first 2 films)Anyway, T3 is loaded with instense action and lots of destruction.  This film had the most destruction out of the 3.  The only thing that keeps that this film from getting a perfect 5/5 is that part is confusing and there are some things in this movie that seem ridiculous.  Things such as the T-850 kicking an ambnulance and cousing it to tip over.  This film however doesn't come close to as good as the second was.  T2 was way better, even the original Terminator (1984) was better.  But this is still good and should be ssen while it is still in theaters.

Answer: This film was terrific

This film was terrific !

To my surprise, T3 didn't turn out to be as bad as I thought it would have been. I had low expectations of this film due to all the factors that gave reasoning for this to be a bad film such as the absenses of James Cameron and Linda Hamilton. But after I saw this film, I was BLOWN AWAY from all those thoughts. <hl> This film was terrific ! <hl> It would have been nice Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong (the kid who played John Conner in T2)to return but not everything is perfect in life. This easily one of Arnold's best movies he has made in years. But compared to the first two, this is the worst Terminator movie yet, but it is still a mind blowing action-packed thrill ride. Atnold's back and better then ever and has his mind set on a new intense adventure as a machine. Anyway, here is the plot.. It has now been ten yrs since skynet was blown away. Sarah Conner is now deceased and John Conner is now basically doing whatever he can to avoid the life he was destined for. He basically does what he can to stay alive and keeps traveling hundreds of miles but really has no idea where he is going. Nut it turns out that blowing up Skynet doesn't prevent Judgement Day; it only postponed it. That means that the Terminators will still exist, and now there is one a new and very advanced one. It is called the T-X (Terminatrix), played by Kristanna Loken who is wicked hot! She is Faster, stronger,and can control and heavy machinery with her mind . As in she can drive a car, but she won't be in the car, she will be somewhere else while her mind will be controlloing the car. This Terminator is sent to do the obvious-Kill John Conner. But that is not all. Conner isn't going to be the only general in the war against the machines in the future. There will be other generals in the war and the T-X must kill everynody who will become a general in the future right now so they won't be able to fight in the war. Also a T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger). It is slighlty more advanced then the T-800's that were sent back in the first 2 films. His mission is of course protect Conner and his fri9end Kate Brewster (Clare Danes). It seems that Brewster's father is the man who will create Skynet and is almost finished with the project. Now it is up to them to stop that from happening and before the T-X can get to them and terminate them. One other thing, Earl Boen makes a small reappearence as Dr. Silberman (the guy who treated Sarah Conner in the first 2 films)Anyway, T3 is loaded with instense action and lots of destruction. This film had the most destruction out of the 3. The only thing that keeps that this film from getting a perfect 5/5 is that part is confusing and there are some things in this movie that seem ridiculous. Things such as the T-850 kicking an ambnulance and cousing it to tip over. This film however doesn't come close to as good as the second was. T2 was way better, even the original Terminator (1984) was better. But this is still good and should be ssen while it is still in theaters.

To my surprise, T3 didn't turn out to be as bad as I thought it would have been. I had low expectations of this film due to all the factors that gave reasoning for this to be a bad film such as the absenses of James Cameron and Linda Hamilton. But after I saw this film, I was BLOWN AWAY from all those thoughts. <hl> This film was terrific <hl>! It would have been nice Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong (the kid who played John Conner in T2)to return but not everything is perfect in life. This easily one of Arnold's best movies he has made in years. But compared to the first two, this is the worst Terminator movie yet, but it is still a mind blowing action-packed thrill ride. Atnold's back and better then ever and has his mind set on a new intense adventure as a machine. Anyway, here is the plot..It has now been ten yrs since skynet was blown away. Sarah Conner is now deceased and John Conner is now basically doing whatever he can to avoid the life he was destined for. He basically does what he can to stay alive and keeps traveling hundreds of miles but really has no idea where he is going. Nut it turns out that blowing up Skynet doesn't prevent Judgement Day; it only postponed it. That means that the Terminators will still exist, and now there is one a new and very advanced one. It is called the T-X (Terminatrix), played by Kristanna Loken who is wicked hot! She is Faster, stronger,and can control and heavy machinery with her mind . As in she can drive a car, but she won't be in the car, she will be somewhere else while her mind will be controlloing the car. This Terminator is sent to do the obvious-Kill John Conner. But that is not all. Conner isn't going to be the only general in the war against the machines in the future. There will be other generals in the war and the T-X must kill everynody who will become a general in the future right now so they won't be able to fight in the war. Also a T-850 (Arnold Schwarzenegger). It is slighlty more advanced then the T-800's that were sent back in the first 2 films. His mission is of course protect Conner and his fri9end Kate Brewster (Clare Danes). It seems that Brewster's father is the man who will create Skynet and is almost finished with the project. Now it is up to them to stop that from happening and before the T-X can get to them and terminate them. One other thing, Earl Boen makes a small reappearence as Dr. Silberman (the guy who treated Sarah Conner in the first 2 films)Anyway, T3 is loaded with instense action and lots of destruction. This film had the most destruction out of the 3. The only thing that keeps that this film from getting a perfect 5/5 is that part is confusing and there are some things in this movie that seem ridiculous. Things such as the T-850 kicking an ambnulance and cousing it to tip over. This film however doesn't come close to as good as the second was. T2 was way better, even the original Terminator (1984) was better. But this is still good and should be ssen while it is still in theaters.


Question: What is the series like?

This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when  mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

Answer: This series is great

<hl> This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. <hl> The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl>, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl> , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.


Question: How many dimensions does the character have?

Let me start off by saying that I am one of the people that saw Avatar multiple times in theaters and loved it.  The CGI , as well as the 3D technology infused, were by far the best I have ever seen.  James Cameron and all of the people who participated in the making of this movie did a tremendous job.  Weta workshop is taking its place at the top of the mountain, as far as visual effects companies go.  Watching this movie was like being transported to a different universe.  I was completely immersed throughout the almost three hours I was in the theater.As for the story and acting for the film, I am probably in the minority on most of these reviews.  The story for me, while predictable and reminiscent of other movies I'd seen previously (What movie isn't nowadays?), was extremely enjoyable.  Watching this made me feel young again.  It made me forget about all the worries that an adult life brings, and just enjoy myself in the moment.  Many people argue that the acting in this movie was subpar.  These people say that the portrayals of the characters were downright cartoonish.  I would argue strongly against that.  For the type of movie that this is, the good versus evil portrayals given by the actors works in the movie's  favor.  Sam Worthington especially does well.  If you haven't seen him in Terminator: Salvation, do so.  He made the movie worth watching.Now, to get to the actual product at hand.  I ordered the Blu Ray / DVD combo pack from Amazon.  From the moment the menu came onto my screen, I knew this was going to be something special.  When I pressed play, there was no turning back.  Over the next three hours, my senses were completely assaulted and my mind was dumbstruck.  Simply put, James Cameron's Avatar on the Blu Ray format is the best picture and audio we have seen or heard to date.  I have a feeling it will be years before anything better is brought to the table.  Watching the visuals was more stimulating than looking at a real life forest.  Every detail could be seen from far and away.  The walls of my house shook, and I just hope the neighbors did hear.  I would tell them to buy the movie themselves and experience it.With this release comes certain issues.  While I don't have any of them myself, I will still talk about them as it would be uninformative of me to not.  This release of Avatar is not in 3D.  Many people complain about this, and a large percentage of those people do not even have the right equipment to properly experience 3D yet.  The technology for home theater 3D is very new and very pricey.  Next year, after all the quirks have been worked out, is when we will likely see Avatar in a home release 3D format.  Another gripe is the complete lack of special features.  This again has a good reason.  In the Special Edition coming later this year, there will be scenes incorporated into the movie not even visually completed yet.  Documentaries in high definition have to be put together.  A commentary track needs to be recorded.  No one is being forced to buy this "stripped" edition, however. I am one of the people who will knowingly double or triple dip on this.  The reason for that is because I love it so much.Now to the biggest complaint.  During the initial release, many people were complaining that Avatar would not play in their Blu Ray players.  The reason for that seems to be some new copy protection put on the disc.  While I was not one of the people with this problem, I can certainly sympathize with those who did.  A new firmware update is all it will take to fix the issue.  My PS3, which serves as my Blu Ray player, had a firmware update ready for me before I watched the movie.So if you are one of the millions who loved Avatar when you saw it in theaters, or one of the people who didn't get around to seeing it, now is your time.  Pick this movie up right away without hesitation.  Keep an open mind, and let yourself become immersed.  You do not want to miss what many people believe is one of the top movies of all time.

Answer: picture

Let me start off by saying that I am one of the people that saw Avatar multiple times in theaters and loved it. The CGI , as well as the 3D technology infused, were by far the best I have ever seen. James Cameron and all of the people who participated in the making of this movie did a tremendous job. Weta workshop is taking its place at the top of the mountain, as far as visual effects companies go. Watching this movie was like being transported to a different universe. I was completely immersed throughout the almost three hours I was in the theater. As for the story and acting for the film, I am probably in the minority on most of these reviews. The story for me, while predictable and reminiscent of other movies I'd seen previously (What movie isn't nowadays?), was extremely enjoyable. Watching this made me feel young again. It made me forget about all the worries that an adult life brings, and just enjoy myself in the moment. Many people argue that the acting in this movie was subpar. These people say that the portrayals of the characters were downright cartoonish. I would argue strongly against that. For the type of movie that this is, the good versus evil portrayals given by the actors works in the movie's favor. Sam Worthington especially does well. If you haven't seen him in Terminator: Salvation, do so. He made the movie worth watching. Now, to get to the actual product at hand. I ordered the Blu Ray / DVD combo pack from Amazon. From the moment the menu came onto my screen, I knew this was going to be something special. When I pressed play, there was no turning back. Over the next three hours, my senses were completely assaulted and my mind was dumbstruck. <hl> Simply put, James Cameron's Avatar on the Blu Ray format is the best picture and audio we have seen or heard to date. <hl> I have a feeling it will be years before anything better is brought to the table. Watching the visuals was more stimulating than looking at a real life forest. Every detail could be seen from far and away. The walls of my house shook, and I just hope the neighbors did hear. I would tell them to buy the movie themselves and experience it. With this release comes certain issues. While I don't have any of them myself, I will still talk about them as it would be uninformative of me to not. This release of Avatar is not in 3D. Many people complain about this, and a large percentage of those people do not even have the right equipment to properly experience 3D yet. The technology for home theater 3D is very new and very pricey. Next year, after all the quirks have been worked out, is when we will likely see Avatar in a home release 3D format. Another gripe is the complete lack of special features. This again has a good reason. In the Special Edition coming later this year, there will be scenes incorporated into the movie not even visually completed yet. Documentaries in high definition have to be put together. A commentary track needs to be recorded. No one is being forced to buy this "stripped" edition, however. I am one of the people who will knowingly double or triple dip on this. The reason for that is because I love it so much. Now to the biggest complaint. During the initial release, many people were complaining that Avatar would not play in their Blu Ray players. The reason for that seems to be some new copy protection put on the disc. While I was not one of the people with this problem, I can certainly sympathize with those who did. A new firmware update is all it will take to fix the issue. My PS3, which serves as my Blu Ray player, had a firmware update ready for me before I watched the movie. So if you are one of the millions who loved Avatar when you saw it in theaters, or one of the people who didn't get around to seeing it, now is your time. Pick this movie up right away without hesitation. Keep an open mind, and let yourself become immersed. You do not want to miss what many people believe is one of the top movies of all time.

Let me start off by saying that I am one of the people that saw Avatar multiple times in theaters and loved it. The CGI , as well as the 3D technology infused, were by far the best I have ever seen. James Cameron and all of the people who participated in the making of this movie did a tremendous job. Weta workshop is taking its place at the top of the mountain, as far as visual effects companies go. Watching this movie was like being transported to a different universe. I was completely immersed throughout the almost three hours I was in the theater.As for the story and acting for the film, I am probably in the minority on most of these reviews. The story for me, while predictable and reminiscent of other movies I'd seen previously (What movie isn't nowadays?), was extremely enjoyable. Watching this made me feel young again. It made me forget about all the worries that an adult life brings, and just enjoy myself in the moment. Many people argue that the acting in this movie was subpar. These people say that the portrayals of the characters were downright cartoonish. I would argue strongly against that. For the type of movie that this is, the good versus evil portrayals given by the actors works in the movie's favor. Sam Worthington especially does well. If you haven't seen him in Terminator: Salvation, do so. He made the movie worth watching.Now, to get to the actual product at hand. I ordered the Blu Ray / DVD combo pack from Amazon. From the moment the menu came onto my screen, I knew this was going to be something special. When I pressed play, there was no turning back. Over the next three hours, my senses were completely assaulted and my mind was dumbstruck. Simply put, James Cameron's Avatar on the Blu Ray format is the best <hl> picture <hl> and audio we have seen or heard to date. I have a feeling it will be years before anything better is brought to the table. Watching the visuals was more stimulating than looking at a real life forest. Every detail could be seen from far and away. The walls of my house shook, and I just hope the neighbors did hear. I would tell them to buy the movie themselves and experience it.With this release comes certain issues. While I don't have any of them myself, I will still talk about them as it would be uninformative of me to not. This release of Avatar is not in 3D. Many people complain about this, and a large percentage of those people do not even have the right equipment to properly experience 3D yet. The technology for home theater 3D is very new and very pricey. Next year, after all the quirks have been worked out, is when we will likely see Avatar in a home release 3D format. Another gripe is the complete lack of special features. This again has a good reason. In the Special Edition coming later this year, there will be scenes incorporated into the movie not even visually completed yet. Documentaries in high definition have to be put together. A commentary track needs to be recorded. No one is being forced to buy this "stripped" edition, however. I am one of the people who will knowingly double or triple dip on this. The reason for that is because I love it so much.Now to the biggest complaint. During the initial release, many people were complaining that Avatar would not play in their Blu Ray players. The reason for that seems to be some new copy protection put on the disc. While I was not one of the people with this problem, I can certainly sympathize with those who did. A new firmware update is all it will take to fix the issue. My PS3, which serves as my Blu Ray player, had a firmware update ready for me before I watched the movie.So if you are one of the millions who loved Avatar when you saw it in theaters, or one of the people who didn't get around to seeing it, now is your time. Pick this movie up right away without hesitation. Keep an open mind, and let yourself become immersed. You do not want to miss what many people believe is one of the top movies of all time.


Question: How is the character?

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).

Answer: The main characters are consistent and well developed

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. <hl> The main characters are consistent and well developed , and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. <hl> Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. <hl> The main characters are consistent and well developed <hl>, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).

<hl> The main characters are consistent and well developed <hl> , and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant.


Question: How is it the movie?

As one of the most awaited movies in history, it would be very hard to live up to the hype that surrounded Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith.  But it does - and does so very, very well. If Episodes I and II were the appetizers, Episode III is the main course and the desert for the Star Wars prequel trilogy.If you don't know, the Star Wars prequel trilogy was designed to be the story of a good man's decent into evil - eventually leading him to become one of cinemas most iconic villains: Darth Vader.  In Episodes I and II we see glimpses of this character as Anakin Skywalker fights off his inner anger and fear in the face of turmoil.  In Episode III, these feelings become even stronger because of the love he has for his secret wife, Padme, and his allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine.  As the Republic falls apart at the hands of Palpatine, so does Anakin.  It is truthfully painful to watch our hero's decent to the Dark Side of the Force, but the part is played magnificently by Hayden Christensen.Anakin is truly and thankfully the central character of this movie, but the other characters in the movie are pivotal as well. Ian McDiarmid (the aforementioned Chancellor Palpatine) delivers a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performace as Skywalker's "friend" who twists Anakin's mind and heart leading him to his eventual destruction.  Ewan McGregor also does an incredible job as Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he did in Episodes I and II, who plays a pivotal role in the movie as a protector of the galaxy and as Anakin's mentor, friend, and conscience.  The scenes between Anakin and his wife, Padme (played by Natalie Portman), are very good, heartbreaking, and touching.  Anakin discovers Padme is pregnant (with twins, unbeknownst to them - eventual Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia) which makes it all the more difficult for them to continue this marriage in secrecy. Portman delivers a wonderful performance, although her screen time is limited compared to the previous two prequels.  Both of the droids, C3PO and R2-D2, are back as well, as well they should be.  They are as essential a part of the saga as anyone is and any scene that they are in is definitely enjoyable.  The supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu, Christopher Lee as Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus, and the voice acting of Frank Oz as Yoda are wonderful as well.Being the last of the Star Wars films and the movie that connects the prequel trilogy to the original one, anyone familiar with Star Wars can see the end in sight when watching Episode III.  As George Lucas has said, this movie has most of the plot that he had envisioned when he decided to go back and do a prequel trilogy - and the plot does shine.  This movie totally pulls you in from start to finish. From the awe-striking space battle, through the multiple incredible lightsaber and ground battles, through Anakin's heart-wrenching struggle to choose what is most important to him and all of the confusion that these choices cause, and to the heartwarming, yet tear-jerking end - this movie is absolutely incredible and one for the ages.If you are a Star Wars fan, or even if you have never really checked it out before - this is an incredible movie for all audiences.  It may be a little scary and violent for younger viewers (hence the series' first PG-13 rating), but all of these movies are incredibly clean with no objectional content whatsoever (other than what I would call "mild" violence with no blood or gore).  I would recommend seeing the others before seeing this one, but this movie can definitely stand alone as a truly great movie.  This is definitely a MUST SEE, in my opinion, and is a MUST BUY for anyone who has been on the incredible ride that Lucas started in 1977 with a little movie that no one thought would succeed called "Star Wars".

Answer: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

<hl> As one of the most awaited movies in history, it would be very hard to live up to the hype that surrounded Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith . <hl> But it does - and does so very, very well. If Episodes I and II were the appetizers, Episode III is the main course and the desert for the Star Wars prequel trilogy. If you don't know, the Star Wars prequel trilogy was designed to be the story of a good man's decent into evil - eventually leading him to become one of cinemas most iconic villains: Darth Vader. In Episodes I and II we see glimpses of this character as Anakin Skywalker fights off his inner anger and fear in the face of turmoil. In Episode III, these feelings become even stronger because of the love he has for his secret wife, Padme, and his allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine. As the Republic falls apart at the hands of Palpatine, so does Anakin. It is truthfully painful to watch our hero's decent to the Dark Side of the Force, but the part is played magnificently by Hayden Christensen. Anakin is truly and thankfully the central character of this movie, but the other characters in the movie are pivotal as well. Ian McDiarmid (the aforementioned Chancellor Palpatine) delivers a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performace as Skywalker's "friend" who twists Anakin's mind and heart leading him to his eventual destruction. Ewan McGregor also does an incredible job as Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he did in Episodes I and II, who plays a pivotal role in the movie as a protector of the galaxy and as Anakin's mentor, friend, and conscience. The scenes between Anakin and his wife, Padme (played by Natalie Portman), are very good, heartbreaking, and touching. Anakin discovers Padme is pregnant (with twins, unbeknownst to them - eventual Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia) which makes it all the more difficult for them to continue this marriage in secrecy. Portman delivers a wonderful performance, although her screen time is limited compared to the previous two prequels. Both of the droids, C3PO and R2-D2, are back as well, as well they should be. They are as essential a part of the saga as anyone is and any scene that they are in is definitely enjoyable. The supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu, Christopher Lee as Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus, and the voice acting of Frank Oz as Yoda are wonderful as well. Being the last of the Star Wars films and the movie that connects the prequel trilogy to the original one, anyone familiar with Star Wars can see the end in sight when watching Episode III. As George Lucas has said, this movie has most of the plot that he had envisioned when he decided to go back and do a prequel trilogy - and the plot does shine. This movie totally pulls you in from start to finish. From the awe-striking space battle, through the multiple incredible lightsaber and ground battles, through Anakin's heart-wrenching struggle to choose what is most important to him and all of the confusion that these choices cause, and to the heartwarming, yet tear-jerking end - this movie is absolutely incredible and one for the ages. If you are a Star Wars fan, or even if you have never really checked it out before - this is an incredible movie for all audiences. It may be a little scary and violent for younger viewers (hence the series' first PG-13 rating), but all of these movies are incredibly clean with no objectional content whatsoever (other than what I would call "mild" violence with no blood or gore). I would recommend seeing the others before seeing this one, but this movie can definitely stand alone as a truly great movie. This is definitely a MUST SEE, in my opinion, and is a MUST BUY for anyone who has been on the incredible ride that Lucas started in 1977 with a little movie that no one thought would succeed called "Star Wars".

As one of the most awaited movies in history, it would be very hard to live up to the hype that surrounded <hl> Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith <hl>. But it does - and does so very, very well. If Episodes I and II were the appetizers, Episode III is the main course and the desert for the Star Wars prequel trilogy.If you don't know, the Star Wars prequel trilogy was designed to be the story of a good man's decent into evil - eventually leading him to become one of cinemas most iconic villains: Darth Vader. In Episodes I and II we see glimpses of this character as Anakin Skywalker fights off his inner anger and fear in the face of turmoil. In Episode III, these feelings become even stronger because of the love he has for his secret wife, Padme, and his allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine. As the Republic falls apart at the hands of Palpatine, so does Anakin. It is truthfully painful to watch our hero's decent to the Dark Side of the Force, but the part is played magnificently by Hayden Christensen.Anakin is truly and thankfully the central character of this movie, but the other characters in the movie are pivotal as well. Ian McDiarmid (the aforementioned Chancellor Palpatine) delivers a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performace as Skywalker's "friend" who twists Anakin's mind and heart leading him to his eventual destruction. Ewan McGregor also does an incredible job as Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he did in Episodes I and II, who plays a pivotal role in the movie as a protector of the galaxy and as Anakin's mentor, friend, and conscience. The scenes between Anakin and his wife, Padme (played by Natalie Portman), are very good, heartbreaking, and touching. Anakin discovers Padme is pregnant (with twins, unbeknownst to them - eventual Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia) which makes it all the more difficult for them to continue this marriage in secrecy. Portman delivers a wonderful performance, although her screen time is limited compared to the previous two prequels. Both of the droids, C3PO and R2-D2, are back as well, as well they should be. They are as essential a part of the saga as anyone is and any scene that they are in is definitely enjoyable. The supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu, Christopher Lee as Count Dooku/Darth Tyranus, and the voice acting of Frank Oz as Yoda are wonderful as well.Being the last of the Star Wars films and the movie that connects the prequel trilogy to the original one, anyone familiar with Star Wars can see the end in sight when watching Episode III. As George Lucas has said, this movie has most of the plot that he had envisioned when he decided to go back and do a prequel trilogy - and the plot does shine. This movie totally pulls you in from start to finish. From the awe-striking space battle, through the multiple incredible lightsaber and ground battles, through Anakin's heart-wrenching struggle to choose what is most important to him and all of the confusion that these choices cause, and to the heartwarming, yet tear-jerking end - this movie is absolutely incredible and one for the ages.If you are a Star Wars fan, or even if you have never really checked it out before - this is an incredible movie for all audiences. It may be a little scary and violent for younger viewers (hence the series' first PG-13 rating), but all of these movies are incredibly clean with no objectional content whatsoever (other than what I would call "mild" violence with no blood or gore). I would recommend seeing the others before seeing this one, but this movie can definitely stand alone as a truly great movie. This is definitely a MUST SEE, in my opinion, and is a MUST BUY for anyone who has been on the incredible ride that Lucas started in 1977 with a little movie that no one thought would succeed called "Star Wars".

As one of the most awaited movies in history, it would be very hard to live up to the hype that surrounded <hl> Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith <hl> .


Question: What is the maximimum productions of the company?

The Hunger Games is the start of another franchise of movies based a series of teen books.  However, I did not think the movie was that bad, but actually quite good.  I do not think it is as good as the Lord of the Rings films, Narnia films, or the Harry Potter films, but still fairly enjoyable.  Compared to the string of teen fantasy movies that have come out recently like Percy Jackson or Twilight this movie is god.The story is pretty simple.  It takes place in the distant future.  There was once a big civil war which has left North America in ruins.  Instead of countries there now exists twelve districts.  Each year the capital of Panem forces either a boy or a girl from each district to compete in the Hunger Games where they all battle to the death.  From District 12 a girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is chosen to compete along with her friend/love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth).People accuse this film of ripping of another film called Battle Royale.  Firstly I have not seen Battle Royale so I cannot say which film is better.  Secondly, I'm sure that Battle Royale was not the first of its kind either.  Everything is inspired by something.  There have been movies and TV shows that have come out after this that have a similar premise of people put somewhere and are forced to fight to the death.  For all anime fans out there, there is an anime that came out last year (the same year that the Hunger Games came out) called Btooom that has pretty much the same premise yet I do not see many people complaining that that show ripped-off Battle Royale.Plus the film is still well structured, well, acted, and can be entertaining.  The characters are pretty solid.  I do like Katniss and it is easy to sympathize with her given the situation.  The stuff that she goes through is pretty scary and intense.  I can say that I would be dead in the first ten minutes if I was put in the Hunger Games.The movie has some great effects, decent actions scenes, and an interesting world.  I cannot comment on the 3D because I only saw the film in 2D.  There is one complaint I have and that is the middle portion.  I found much of the middle of the film to be kind of boring.  The middle mostly focuses of the political aspect of this world and preparing Katniss for the games.Overall, the Hunger Games was a pleasant surprise.  I did not expect much upon going to see it.  I basically saw it because my mother made me see it.  I have to admit it was much better than I thought it was going to be.  It was nothing incredible but it was still good.

Answer: I do not think it is as good

The Hunger Games is the start of another franchise of movies based a series of teen books. However, I did not think the movie was that bad, but actually quite good. <hl> I do not think it is as good as the Lord of the Rings films, Narnia films, or the Harry Potter films, but still fairly enjoyable. <hl> Compared to the string of teen fantasy movies that have come out recently like Percy Jackson or Twilight this movie is god. The story is pretty simple. It takes place in the distant future. There was once a big civil war which has left North America in ruins. Instead of countries there now exists twelve districts. Each year the capital of Panem forces either a boy or a girl from each district to compete in the Hunger Games where they all battle to the death. From District 12 a girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is chosen to compete along with her friend/love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth).People accuse this film of ripping of another film called Battle Royale. Firstly I have not seen Battle Royale so I cannot say which film is better. Secondly, I'm sure that Battle Royale was not the first of its kind either. Everything is inspired by something. There have been movies and TV shows that have come out after this that have a similar premise of people put somewhere and are forced to fight to the death. For all anime fans out there, there is an anime that came out last year (the same year that the Hunger Games came out) called Btooom that has pretty much the same premise yet I do not see many people complaining that that show ripped-off Battle Royale. Plus the film is still well structured, well, acted, and can be entertaining. The characters are pretty solid. I do like Katniss and it is easy to sympathize with her given the situation. The stuff that she goes through is pretty scary and intense. I can say that I would be dead in the first ten minutes if I was put in the Hunger Games. The movie has some great effects, decent actions scenes, and an interesting world. I cannot comment on the 3D because I only saw the film in 2D. There is one complaint I have and that is the middle portion. I found much of the middle of the film to be kind of boring. The middle mostly focuses of the political aspect of this world and preparing Katniss for the games. Overall, the Hunger Games was a pleasant surprise. I did not expect much upon going to see it. I basically saw it because my mother made me see it. I have to admit it was much better than I thought it was going to be. It was nothing incredible but it was still good.

The Hunger Games is the start of another franchise of movies based a series of teen books. However, I did not think the movie was that bad, but actually quite good. <hl> I do not think it is as good <hl> as the Lord of the Rings films, Narnia films, or the Harry Potter films, but still fairly enjoyable. Compared to the string of teen fantasy movies that have come out recently like Percy Jackson or Twilight this movie is god.The story is pretty simple. It takes place in the distant future. There was once a big civil war which has left North America in ruins. Instead of countries there now exists twelve districts. Each year the capital of Panem forces either a boy or a girl from each district to compete in the Hunger Games where they all battle to the death. From District 12 a girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is chosen to compete along with her friend/love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth).People accuse this film of ripping of another film called Battle Royale. Firstly I have not seen Battle Royale so I cannot say which film is better. Secondly, I'm sure that Battle Royale was not the first of its kind either. Everything is inspired by something. There have been movies and TV shows that have come out after this that have a similar premise of people put somewhere and are forced to fight to the death. For all anime fans out there, there is an anime that came out last year (the same year that the Hunger Games came out) called Btooom that has pretty much the same premise yet I do not see many people complaining that that show ripped-off Battle Royale.Plus the film is still well structured, well, acted, and can be entertaining. The characters are pretty solid. I do like Katniss and it is easy to sympathize with her given the situation. The stuff that she goes through is pretty scary and intense. I can say that I would be dead in the first ten minutes if I was put in the Hunger Games.The movie has some great effects, decent actions scenes, and an interesting world. I cannot comment on the 3D because I only saw the film in 2D. There is one complaint I have and that is the middle portion. I found much of the middle of the film to be kind of boring. The middle mostly focuses of the political aspect of this world and preparing Katniss for the games.Overall, the Hunger Games was a pleasant surprise. I did not expect much upon going to see it. I basically saw it because my mother made me see it. I have to admit it was much better than I thought it was going to be. It was nothing incredible but it was still good.


Question: How was the film?

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of  the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical  score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march  from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet  seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film.

Answer: great film

Truly a must see, great film .

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). <hl> Truly a must see, great film . <hl>

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, <hl> great film <hl>.

Truly a must see, <hl> great film <hl> .


Question: Why do I have an amazing actor?

This is a wonderful depiction of the lives of a wealthy British Lord, his family and friends in the 19th century. The characters have been cast perfectly, the acting is marvelous and the filming (on location at an actual mansion) is simply perfect.

Answer: the acting is marvelous

This is a wonderful depiction of the lives of a wealthy British Lord, his family and friends in the 19th century. <hl> The characters have been cast perfectly, the acting is marvelous and the filming (on location at an actual mansion) is simply perfect. <hl>

This is a wonderful depiction of the lives of a wealthy British Lord, his family and friends in the 19th century. The characters have been cast perfectly, <hl> the acting is marvelous <hl> and the filming (on location at an actual mansion) is simply perfect.


Question: How is sense?

Very funny movie. This talking Teddy Bear is a hoot.  Makes you want a teddy bear that could talk.  I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor.

Answer: I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor

Very funny movie. This talking Teddy Bear is a hoot. Makes you want a teddy bear that could talk. <hl> I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor . <hl>

Very funny movie. This talking Teddy Bear is a hoot. Makes you want a teddy bear that could talk. <hl> I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor <hl>.

<hl> I recommend this movie to any on who has a good sense of humor <hl> .


Question: How is action?

If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious. If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. If you are looking for plausibility, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie.

Answer: If you are looking for plausibility

If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious. If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. <hl> If you are looking for plausibility , skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie. <hl>

If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious. If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. <hl> If you are looking for plausibility <hl>, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie.

<hl> If you are looking for plausibility <hl> , skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie.


Question: What do you think about the plot?

"Galaxy Quest" is one of the most fine and fun Sci-Fi Vids. Altho, meant as a spoof -- with many archetypical Sci-Fi aspects -- it actually demonstrates good Sci-Fi Vid production values. The plot, drama, dialog, romance, acting and actors are excellent -- as are the scenes, effects and Hi-Tech. The sets and settings are grand and galactic. Also, as are the audio effects and dramatic music. Also, as are the wheels-within-wheels of Sci-Fi reference aspects -- to "Star Trek", "Star Wars" and many other Vids -- and action-adventure in general. Also, as are the reversed archetypes. Especially great are the starships of the good and bad folks. As are the appearance of the good and bad folks. The Sci-Fi Con scenes are way funny -- as are the young geeks and nerds, who give critcal assistance to the "real" good folks. This Vid is a great Ideal of movie production in general -- that many folks can enjoy -- may The Farce be with you +++

Answer: excellent

"Galaxy Quest" is one of the most fine and fun Sci-Fi Vids. Altho, meant as a spoof -- with many archetypical Sci-Fi aspects -- it actually demonstrates good Sci-Fi Vid production values. <hl> The plot, drama, dialog, romance, acting and actors are excellent -- as are the scenes, effects and Hi-Tech. <hl> The sets and settings are grand and galactic. Also, as are the audio effects and dramatic music. Also, as are the wheels-within-wheels of Sci-Fi reference aspects -- to "Star Trek", "Star Wars" and many other Vids -- and action-adventure in general. Also, as are the reversed archetypes. Especially great are the starships of the good and bad folks. As are the appearance of the good and bad folks. The Sci-Fi Con scenes are way funny -- as are the young geeks and nerds, who give critcal assistance to the "real" good folks. This Vid is a great Ideal of movie production in general -- that many folks can enjoy -- may The Farce be with you +++

"Galaxy Quest" is one of the most fine and fun Sci-Fi Vids. Altho, meant as a spoof -- with many archetypical Sci-Fi aspects -- it actually demonstrates good Sci-Fi Vid production values. The plot, drama, dialog, romance, acting and actors are <hl> excellent <hl> -- as are the scenes, effects and Hi-Tech. The sets and settings are grand and galactic. Also, as are the audio effects and dramatic music. Also, as are the wheels-within-wheels of Sci-Fi reference aspects -- to "Star Trek", "Star Wars" and many other Vids -- and action-adventure in general. Also, as are the reversed archetypes. Especially great are the starships of the good and bad folks. As are the appearance of the good and bad folks. The Sci-Fi Con scenes are way funny -- as are the young geeks and nerds, who give critcal assistance to the "real" good folks. This Vid is a great Ideal of movie production in general -- that many folks can enjoy -- may The Farce be with you +++


Question: What is the impact it will make on children in the 5th grade?

Slasher films are a dime-a-dozen. HALLOWEEN. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The list is lengthy. Some of them introduce new characters that send goose bumps up our backs. Others tread over old material and put a fresh spin on them. But THE DESCENT doesn't do any of that.Comically labeled as "Six Chicks With Picks," this cave exploration thriller has the obligatory fright scenes (you know the kind ...where something weird suddenly and loudly burst toward screen), the attractive die-off cast, and themes trodden over time and again (from ALIENS to the horrible film THE CAVE.)For some reason this flick has gotten several positive reviews by professional film critics, but I fail to see why. There's nothing original. Nothing that lingers after watching it. No truly memorable cast members.That we're supposed to sympathize with Sarah (Shauna Mcdonald), the main character, is rammed down our throats (and through her husband's head) when a car accident takes Sarah's family from her. A year later, a group of girlfriends get together to go spelunking and to try and heal the wounds left by the death of Sarah's husband and child. There's a touch of deceit going on as Juno (Natalie Jackson Mendoza) was obviously having an affair with Sarah's husband before the accident. Whether Sarah knows of this or not is up for interpretation.As the group of six descend into the cave we quickly learn that this is an unexplored hole. And when a cave-in happens, they're forced to find another way out. But with them in the caverns is something pale and insidious (think about the Morlocks from THE TIME MACHINE and you won't be far off). But are they really there? Is it possible that Sarah's had a meltdown and only imagined seeing these creatures?It isn't the question of Sarah's sanity that'll put you off The Descent, but rather the ho-hum attitude most will have after seeing the film. It just doesn't have any emotional impact. You don't care whether these gals live or get their stomachs ripped open.The filming is also very dark and it's often difficult to see what exactly is going on. Although caves are dark and difficult to see in, this doesn't necessarily translate well to an entertaining movie experience.Still, those with a fear of enclosed spaces will probably be pretty freaked out by The Descent. The claustrophobia is easily felt, and when you add to that some bizarre ghost-like creatures with Spiderman-like crawling abilities, some might find this a lightly entertaining creep-fest.

Answer: doesn't have any emotional impact

Slasher films are a dime-a-dozen. HALLOWEEN. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The list is lengthy. Some of them introduce new characters that send goose bumps up our backs. Others tread over old material and put a fresh spin on them. But THE DESCENT doesn't do any of that. Comically labeled as "Six Chicks With Picks," this cave exploration thriller has the obligatory fright scenes (you know the kind ...where something weird suddenly and loudly burst toward screen), the attractive die-off cast, and themes trodden over time and again (from ALIENS to the horrible film THE CAVE.)For some reason this flick has gotten several positive reviews by professional film critics, but I fail to see why. There's nothing original. Nothing that lingers after watching it. No truly memorable cast members. That we're supposed to sympathize with Sarah (Shauna Mcdonald), the main character, is rammed down our throats (and through her husband's head) when a car accident takes Sarah's family from her. A year later, a group of girlfriends get together to go spelunking and to try and heal the wounds left by the death of Sarah's husband and child. There's a touch of deceit going on as Juno (Natalie Jackson Mendoza) was obviously having an affair with Sarah's husband before the accident. Whether Sarah knows of this or not is up for interpretation. As the group of six descend into the cave we quickly learn that this is an unexplored hole. And when a cave-in happens, they're forced to find another way out. But with them in the caverns is something pale and insidious (think about the Morlocks from THE TIME MACHINE and you won't be far off). But are they really there? Is it possible that Sarah's had a meltdown and only imagined seeing these creatures?It isn't the question of Sarah's sanity that'll put you off The Descent, but rather the ho-hum attitude most will have after seeing the film. <hl> It just doesn't have any emotional impact . <hl> You don't care whether these gals live or get their stomachs ripped open. The filming is also very dark and it's often difficult to see what exactly is going on. Although caves are dark and difficult to see in, this doesn't necessarily translate well to an entertaining movie experience. Still, those with a fear of enclosed spaces will probably be pretty freaked out by The Descent. The claustrophobia is easily felt, and when you add to that some bizarre ghost-like creatures with Spiderman-like crawling abilities, some might find this a lightly entertaining creep-fest.

Slasher films are a dime-a-dozen. HALLOWEEN. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The list is lengthy. Some of them introduce new characters that send goose bumps up our backs. Others tread over old material and put a fresh spin on them. But THE DESCENT doesn't do any of that.Comically labeled as "Six Chicks With Picks," this cave exploration thriller has the obligatory fright scenes (you know the kind ...where something weird suddenly and loudly burst toward screen), the attractive die-off cast, and themes trodden over time and again (from ALIENS to the horrible film THE CAVE.)For some reason this flick has gotten several positive reviews by professional film critics, but I fail to see why. There's nothing original. Nothing that lingers after watching it. No truly memorable cast members.That we're supposed to sympathize with Sarah (Shauna Mcdonald), the main character, is rammed down our throats (and through her husband's head) when a car accident takes Sarah's family from her. A year later, a group of girlfriends get together to go spelunking and to try and heal the wounds left by the death of Sarah's husband and child. There's a touch of deceit going on as Juno (Natalie Jackson Mendoza) was obviously having an affair with Sarah's husband before the accident. Whether Sarah knows of this or not is up for interpretation.As the group of six descend into the cave we quickly learn that this is an unexplored hole. And when a cave-in happens, they're forced to find another way out. But with them in the caverns is something pale and insidious (think about the Morlocks from THE TIME MACHINE and you won't be far off). But are they really there? Is it possible that Sarah's had a meltdown and only imagined seeing these creatures?It isn't the question of Sarah's sanity that'll put you off The Descent, but rather the ho-hum attitude most will have after seeing the film. It just <hl> doesn't have any emotional impact <hl>. You don't care whether these gals live or get their stomachs ripped open.The filming is also very dark and it's often difficult to see what exactly is going on. Although caves are dark and difficult to see in, this doesn't necessarily translate well to an entertaining movie experience.Still, those with a fear of enclosed spaces will probably be pretty freaked out by The Descent. The claustrophobia is easily felt, and when you add to that some bizarre ghost-like creatures with Spiderman-like crawling abilities, some might find this a lightly entertaining creep-fest.

It just <hl> doesn't have any emotional impact <hl> .


Question: How is character?

Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us "old fans", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed.The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters. It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in "Return of the Jedi".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire.Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks...well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Answer: As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken

Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. <hl> As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken . <hl> Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us "old fans", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed. The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters. It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in "Return of the Jedi".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire. Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks... well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. <hl> As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken <hl>. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us "old fans", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed.The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters. It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in "Return of the Jedi".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire.Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks...well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth.

<hl> As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken <hl> .