Question: What is the quality of the video?

Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD.  It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version.  If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set.  I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.

Answer: quality was so clear and clean

Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover. First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there. For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along. The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure. I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation. Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone. Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. <hl> Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed. <hl> If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day. Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable. Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one. If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.

Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the <hl> quality was so clear and clean <hl> that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.


Question: How is style?

Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get "Take My Breath Away" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that "Maverick" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far.Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life.Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth. Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes.

Answer: the film is successful

Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get "Take My Breath Away" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that "Maverick" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far. Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life. Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth. Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. <hl> Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. <hl> The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes.

Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get "Take My Breath Away" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that "Maverick" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far.Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life.Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth. Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, <hl> the film is successful <hl> at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes.


Question: How can i begin?

A lot of the parts are at night or in the dark. It seemed like the end was anti-climatic.  Tom Hanks is great.

Answer: parts are at night

<hl> A lot of the parts are at night or in the dark. <hl> It seemed like the end was anti-climatic. Tom Hanks is great.

A lot of the <hl> parts are at night <hl> or in the dark. It seemed like the end was anti-climatic. Tom Hanks is great.


Question: Is this movie horror?

I am going to try to refrain from writing a lengthy review for this film, and keep it as succint as possible, although for a film like this, the task almost seems impossible. Many reviewers have already said some things that I am going to say, and would have liked to say, but the review will go on, anyway.This is a powerful movie, in which it's main theme centers around drug abuse & addiction, and the dangerous consequences that may follow. But, the film centers on more than just drug abuse and addiction: to me it also centers on life, and how the average folk go about trying to embellish what seems like the emptiness of life. To try and enhance (and possibly) facilitate the meaning of that last sentence, think about this: many people do -- and/or try to reach for -- things that are supposed to make one's life more meaningful and complete: getting married, experiencing the birth of one's first child, going to college, becoming wealthy and/or famous, et al. In society, we are basically brought up to believe that if we follow along certain patterns (e.g. becoming wealthy, etc), we will be happy & fulfilled. One of the many things this film shows us, is that sometimes, what we are brought up to believe, can be a devastating illusion, or at least, there is a strong possibility of this.This story focuses on four main characters, and their addiction to drugs. The story is also cleverly told over the course of four seasons (three, technically), and like another reviewer pointed out a few pages back, the mood of each season correlates with the psychological and circumstantial happenings of each character (or vice versa.) The film starts with the Summer, which correlates with adolescent feelings. In this case, these four characters seemed as if they were happy (or at least we may think they are happy), and seemed to be filled with laughs, smiles and confidence in their future and dreams. In the Autumn, which represents added responsibility, and preparation for "darker times", things start to slowly go downhill for the gang. We can see their circumstances beginning to spiral, and their dispositions begin to follow downward as well. By, Winter (which represents "death" or the "ending"), each of these four members seem to meet the "finality" of their fates, to disturbing effect, to say the least. Spring, which represents birth, and fresh, new beginnings, never arrived. Heavy stuff, there.Some reviewers have complained about the camera techniques used in this film to be nothing more than flash for flash's sake, and similarly, some have said that some of the disturbing scenes found in the film were there for shock value only. I couldn't disagree more. For starters, like another reviewer has pointed out, the "speeding up" and "slowing down" techniques are supposed to correlate with the "speeding" or "raciness" of the characters' thought processes while under the influence of...well...speed (and other drugs.) I found this to be very clever and fascinating. Secondly, while there *are* indeed disturbing images in the film, I didn't necessarily find the images to be the most disturbing aspect of the film, but rather *how* these images were shot. In other words, it's more *psychologically* disturbing, than it is *graphically* disturbing, if that can be basically understood. The way this film was made alone, should not be taken lightly, and it is indeed clever and noteworthy filmmaking. You'd have to see the film for yourself to possibly get a better understanding of what I am talking about.Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly did wonderful and convincing jobs in their respective roles. Their performances truly helped to make the film what it was, and it wouldn't have been as complete without them. Ellen Burstyn's performance seemed to get a droves-worth of accolades, and deservedly so. Her performance was undoubtedly the most frightening, disturbing and heart-wrenching thing about this film. In moments, her character made me laugh, want to cry, and at other times, made me want to turn my head away from the screen altogether. The whole movie is powerful indeed, and the last segment (Winter) is indeed the most intense and hellish part of the movie.I watched this film with another member of my family, and by the time the "Winter" segment had arrived, we were *both* saying things like, "I will *never* watch this movie again. It's a little *too* much reality." Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving, this film will stay in your mind long after it has ended, and many will gather their own responses as to what the movie meant to them. And, if some of you think that what happened to these characters can't happen to anyone in real-life, think again: it's *very* real, and *can* happen (and no doubt *has* happened to some in real-life.) Indeed, reality can be too much at times.Before I close out this review, let me share a brief story with you about someone who used drugs: it was documented in a program (I can't remember the name of it right now) that a female experimented with a drug, and not too long after that, her friends were quick to comment that she was becoming excessively paranoid and delusional. She was sent to a specialist who did a brain scan on her. When the doctor took a look at the scan, we the viewers (and no doubt the girl, and her mother, who happened to be alongside her) saw something *very* disturbing: there were various holes -- large holes -- throughout her brain: like the equivalent of looking at a piece of cheese after a mouse had nipped through it quite well. The result? This girl now suffers from acute bipolar/manic-depressive disorder. And you know what else? This was the result of her experimenting with a drug: after ONLY ONE TRY! That's right, this girl is now stuck with a "psychotic disorder" for the rest of her life, as the result of her experimenting with a drug after only *one* try. Yes, indeed, reality can be a bummer. I recommend seeing this film at least once; this goes for everyone.

Answer: Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving

I am going to try to refrain from writing a lengthy review for this film, and keep it as succint as possible, although for a film like this, the task almost seems impossible. Many reviewers have already said some things that I am going to say, and would have liked to say, but the review will go on, anyway. This is a powerful movie, in which it's main theme centers around drug abuse & addiction, and the dangerous consequences that may follow. But, the film centers on more than just drug abuse and addiction: to me it also centers on life, and how the average folk go about trying to embellish what seems like the emptiness of life. To try and enhance (and possibly) facilitate the meaning of that last sentence, think about this: many people do -- and/or try to reach for -- things that are supposed to make one's life more meaningful and complete: getting married, experiencing the birth of one's first child, going to college, becoming wealthy and/or famous, et al. In society, we are basically brought up to believe that if we follow along certain patterns (e.g. becoming wealthy, etc), we will be happy & fulfilled. One of the many things this film shows us, is that sometimes, what we are brought up to believe, can be a devastating illusion, or at least, there is a strong possibility of this. This story focuses on four main characters, and their addiction to drugs. The story is also cleverly told over the course of four seasons (three, technically), and like another reviewer pointed out a few pages back, the mood of each season correlates with the psychological and circumstantial happenings of each character (or vice versa.) The film starts with the Summer, which correlates with adolescent feelings. In this case, these four characters seemed as if they were happy (or at least we may think they are happy), and seemed to be filled with laughs, smiles and confidence in their future and dreams. In the Autumn, which represents added responsibility, and preparation for "darker times", things start to slowly go downhill for the gang. We can see their circumstances beginning to spiral, and their dispositions begin to follow downward as well. By, Winter (which represents "death" or the "ending"), each of these four members seem to meet the "finality" of their fates, to disturbing effect, to say the least. Spring, which represents birth, and fresh, new beginnings, never arrived. Heavy stuff, there. Some reviewers have complained about the camera techniques used in this film to be nothing more than flash for flash's sake, and similarly, some have said that some of the disturbing scenes found in the film were there for shock value only. I couldn't disagree more. For starters, like another reviewer has pointed out, the "speeding up" and "slowing down" techniques are supposed to correlate with the "speeding" or "raciness" of the characters' thought processes while under the influence of...well...speed (and other drugs.) I found this to be very clever and fascinating. Secondly, while there *are* indeed disturbing images in the film, I didn't necessarily find the images to be the most disturbing aspect of the film, but rather *how* these images were shot. In other words, it's more *psychologically* disturbing, than it is *graphically* disturbing, if that can be basically understood. The way this film was made alone, should not be taken lightly, and it is indeed clever and noteworthy filmmaking. You'd have to see the film for yourself to possibly get a better understanding of what I am talking about. Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly did wonderful and convincing jobs in their respective roles. Their performances truly helped to make the film what it was, and it wouldn't have been as complete without them. Ellen Burstyn's performance seemed to get a droves-worth of accolades, and deservedly so. Her performance was undoubtedly the most frightening, disturbing and heart-wrenching thing about this film. In moments, her character made me laugh, want to cry, and at other times, made me want to turn my head away from the screen altogether. The whole movie is powerful indeed, and the last segment (Winter) is indeed the most intense and hellish part of the movie. I watched this film with another member of my family, and by the time the "Winter" segment had arrived, we were *both* saying things like, "I will *never* watch this movie again. <hl> It's a little *too* much reality." Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving , this film will stay in your mind long after it has ended, and many will gather their own responses as to what the movie meant to them. <hl> And, if some of you think that what happened to these characters can't happen to anyone in real-life, think again: it's *very* real, and *can* happen (and no doubt *has* happened to some in real-life.) Indeed, reality can be too much at times. Before I close out this review, let me share a brief story with you about someone who used drugs: it was documented in a program (I can't remember the name of it right now) that a female experimented with a drug, and not too long after that, her friends were quick to comment that she was becoming excessively paranoid and delusional. She was sent to a specialist who did a brain scan on her. When the doctor took a look at the scan, we the viewers (and no doubt the girl, and her mother, who happened to be alongside her) saw something *very* disturbing: there were various holes -- large holes -- throughout her brain: like the equivalent of looking at a piece of cheese after a mouse had nipped through it quite well. The result? This girl now suffers from acute bipolar/manic-depressive disorder. And you know what else? This was the result of her experimenting with a drug: after ONLY ONE TRY! That's right, this girl is now stuck with a "psychotic disorder" for the rest of her life, as the result of her experimenting with a drug after only *one* try. Yes, indeed, reality can be a bummer. I recommend seeing this film at least once; this goes for everyone.

I am going to try to refrain from writing a lengthy review for this film, and keep it as succint as possible, although for a film like this, the task almost seems impossible. Many reviewers have already said some things that I am going to say, and would have liked to say, but the review will go on, anyway.This is a powerful movie, in which it's main theme centers around drug abuse & addiction, and the dangerous consequences that may follow. But, the film centers on more than just drug abuse and addiction: to me it also centers on life, and how the average folk go about trying to embellish what seems like the emptiness of life. To try and enhance (and possibly) facilitate the meaning of that last sentence, think about this: many people do -- and/or try to reach for -- things that are supposed to make one's life more meaningful and complete: getting married, experiencing the birth of one's first child, going to college, becoming wealthy and/or famous, et al. In society, we are basically brought up to believe that if we follow along certain patterns (e.g. becoming wealthy, etc), we will be happy & fulfilled. One of the many things this film shows us, is that sometimes, what we are brought up to believe, can be a devastating illusion, or at least, there is a strong possibility of this.This story focuses on four main characters, and their addiction to drugs. The story is also cleverly told over the course of four seasons (three, technically), and like another reviewer pointed out a few pages back, the mood of each season correlates with the psychological and circumstantial happenings of each character (or vice versa.) The film starts with the Summer, which correlates with adolescent feelings. In this case, these four characters seemed as if they were happy (or at least we may think they are happy), and seemed to be filled with laughs, smiles and confidence in their future and dreams. In the Autumn, which represents added responsibility, and preparation for "darker times", things start to slowly go downhill for the gang. We can see their circumstances beginning to spiral, and their dispositions begin to follow downward as well. By, Winter (which represents "death" or the "ending"), each of these four members seem to meet the "finality" of their fates, to disturbing effect, to say the least. Spring, which represents birth, and fresh, new beginnings, never arrived. Heavy stuff, there.Some reviewers have complained about the camera techniques used in this film to be nothing more than flash for flash's sake, and similarly, some have said that some of the disturbing scenes found in the film were there for shock value only. I couldn't disagree more. For starters, like another reviewer has pointed out, the "speeding up" and "slowing down" techniques are supposed to correlate with the "speeding" or "raciness" of the characters' thought processes while under the influence of...well...speed (and other drugs.) I found this to be very clever and fascinating. Secondly, while there *are* indeed disturbing images in the film, I didn't necessarily find the images to be the most disturbing aspect of the film, but rather *how* these images were shot. In other words, it's more *psychologically* disturbing, than it is *graphically* disturbing, if that can be basically understood. The way this film was made alone, should not be taken lightly, and it is indeed clever and noteworthy filmmaking. You'd have to see the film for yourself to possibly get a better understanding of what I am talking about.Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly did wonderful and convincing jobs in their respective roles. Their performances truly helped to make the film what it was, and it wouldn't have been as complete without them. Ellen Burstyn's performance seemed to get a droves-worth of accolades, and deservedly so. Her performance was undoubtedly the most frightening, disturbing and heart-wrenching thing about this film. In moments, her character made me laugh, want to cry, and at other times, made me want to turn my head away from the screen altogether. The whole movie is powerful indeed, and the last segment (Winter) is indeed the most intense and hellish part of the movie.I watched this film with another member of my family, and by the time the "Winter" segment had arrived, we were *both* saying things like, "I will *never* watch this movie again. It's a little *too* much reality." <hl> Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving <hl>, this film will stay in your mind long after it has ended, and many will gather their own responses as to what the movie meant to them. And, if some of you think that what happened to these characters can't happen to anyone in real-life, think again: it's *very* real, and *can* happen (and no doubt *has* happened to some in real-life.) Indeed, reality can be too much at times.Before I close out this review, let me share a brief story with you about someone who used drugs: it was documented in a program (I can't remember the name of it right now) that a female experimented with a drug, and not too long after that, her friends were quick to comment that she was becoming excessively paranoid and delusional. She was sent to a specialist who did a brain scan on her. When the doctor took a look at the scan, we the viewers (and no doubt the girl, and her mother, who happened to be alongside her) saw something *very* disturbing: there were various holes -- large holes -- throughout her brain: like the equivalent of looking at a piece of cheese after a mouse had nipped through it quite well. The result? This girl now suffers from acute bipolar/manic-depressive disorder. And you know what else? This was the result of her experimenting with a drug: after ONLY ONE TRY! That's right, this girl is now stuck with a "psychotic disorder" for the rest of her life, as the result of her experimenting with a drug after only *one* try. Yes, indeed, reality can be a bummer. I recommend seeing this film at least once; this goes for everyone.

It's a little *too* much reality." <hl> Nightmarish, disturbing, cautionary, thought-provoking, and moving <hl> , this film will stay in your mind long after it has ended, and many will gather their own responses as to what the movie meant to them.


Question: Why is the cast phenomenal?

This film is about a group of  seniors who all find them selves on their way to India to retire and live because for one reason or another, they can no longer afford to retire in England, their home.  This is a timely, realistic story for today with some fun characters.  There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too!  The cast is fantastic ( Maggie Smith & Judy Dench) and charming.  I really enjoyed this one!

Answer: There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too

This film is about a group of seniors who all find them selves on their way to India to retire and live because for one reason or another, they can no longer afford to retire in England, their home. This is a timely, realistic story for today with some fun characters. <hl> There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too ! <hl> The cast is fantastic ( Maggie Smith & Judy Dench) and charming. I really enjoyed this one!

This film is about a group of seniors who all find them selves on their way to India to retire and live because for one reason or another, they can no longer afford to retire in England, their home. This is a timely, realistic story for today with some fun characters. <hl> There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too <hl>! The cast is fantastic ( Maggie Smith & Judy Dench) and charming. I really enjoyed this one!

<hl> There are some wonderful Indian actors and fantastic dependable English ones too <hl> !


Question: How many episodes are there?

I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying.WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon!

Answer: classic!#22

I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying. WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. <hl> The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. <hl> One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon!

I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying.WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just <hl> classic!#22 <hl> RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon!


Question: Does this story is good enough?

I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth.

Answer: I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together

I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. <hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together . <hl> Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous. Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen. Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion. The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force. That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth.

I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. <hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together <hl>. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth.

<hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together <hl> .


Question: How do you like the film?

This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth. They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore.  But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity.

Answer: This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood

<hl> This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood . <hl> However, it did not have enough depth. They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore. But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity.

<hl> This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood <hl>. However, it did not have enough depth. They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore. But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity.

<hl> This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood <hl> .


Question: Is film good?

I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already.

Answer: I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series

<hl> I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series . <hl> To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already.

I suppose <hl> I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series <hl>. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already.

I suppose <hl> I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two "films" in the series <hl> .


Question: Is there a good song in the movie?

Okay, so I don't actually drink tea. But I must admit, I really don't care for this movie that much. Personally, I don't understand what all the hoopla's about concerning HSM. Sure, the songs are not bad, and the actors are kinda cute, and you gotta give those guys credit for putting a lot of time and effort into this movie. But for some reason, this little teenybopper flick just doesn't turn me on like it seems to do with everyone else. Just about everywhere I turn, it's always "High School Musical this" and "High School Musical that", and all I can say is: "Give me a break."

Answer: the songs are not bad

Okay, so I don't actually drink tea. But I must admit, I really don't care for this movie that much. Personally, I don't understand what all the hoopla's about concerning HSM. <hl> Sure, the songs are not bad , and the actors are kinda cute, and you gotta give those guys credit for putting a lot of time and effort into this movie. <hl> But for some reason, this little teenybopper flick just doesn't turn me on like it seems to do with everyone else. Just about everywhere I turn, it's always "High School Musical this" and "High School Musical that", and all I can say is: "Give me a break."

Okay, so I don't actually drink tea. But I must admit, I really don't care for this movie that much. Personally, I don't understand what all the hoopla's about concerning HSM. Sure, <hl> the songs are not bad <hl>, and the actors are kinda cute, and you gotta give those guys credit for putting a lot of time and effort into this movie. But for some reason, this little teenybopper flick just doesn't turn me on like it seems to do with everyone else. Just about everywhere I turn, it's always "High School Musical this" and "High School Musical that", and all I can say is: "Give me a break."

Sure, <hl> the songs are not bad <hl> , and the actors are kinda cute, and you gotta give those guys credit for putting a lot of time and effort into this movie.


Question: Is the packaging excellent?

It's outstanding! I bought it for my dog and she enjoyed it enormously. The service and price were excellent. I bought this movie for my dog. My cat said it was childish and didn't like it. But my 4 year old dog loves it. She's watched it many times.

Answer: The service and price were excellent

The service and price were excellent .

It's outstanding! I bought it for my dog and she enjoyed it enormously. <hl> The service and price were excellent . <hl> I bought this movie for my dog. My cat said it was childish and didn't like it. But my 4 year old dog loves it. She's watched it many times.

It's outstanding! I bought it for my dog and she enjoyed it enormously. <hl> The service and price were excellent <hl>. I bought this movie for my dog. My cat said it was childish and didn't like it. But my 4 year old dog loves it. She's watched it many times.

<hl> The service and price were excellent <hl> .


Question: How would you rate the movie?

Jennifer Lawrence could read the phone book and I would be fascinated. However, the plot of the Hunger Games is rather weak. Predicting the future has always been a stumbling block for most science fiction writers. We've seen plenty of versions regarding how terrible the future will be... going all the way back to Huxley and Wells. This one divides the country (I presume it is America) into the very wealthy and the very poor, with one poor person given the chance to survive a publically broadcast games that pit children against one another until only one is left standing. This is about as likely as never happening. The premise is so weak as to make the rest of the movie a joke. Supporting performances are also weak. The film relies almost entirely on special effects and the performances of Lawrence and veteran Donald Sutherland. While I love science fiction, I found the end did not justify the means. The plot is weak throughout and solution is open ended, hence Hunger Games, two - will Jennifer end up with her true boyfriend; will she have to volunteer for the games again (she'd have to survive because I believe there is a book three!!!!). Unfortunately, it did well at the box office and Hollywood loves a winner so there will be more coming... but I will not be watching.

Answer: I would be fascinated

<hl> Jennifer Lawrence could read the phone book and I would be fascinated . <hl> However, the plot of the Hunger Games is rather weak. Predicting the future has always been a stumbling block for most science fiction writers. We've seen plenty of versions regarding how terrible the future will be... going all the way back to Huxley and Wells. This one divides the country (I presume it is America) into the very wealthy and the very poor, with one poor person given the chance to survive a publically broadcast games that pit children against one another until only one is left standing. This is about as likely as never happening. The premise is so weak as to make the rest of the movie a joke. Supporting performances are also weak. The film relies almost entirely on special effects and the performances of Lawrence and veteran Donald Sutherland. While I love science fiction, I found the end did not justify the means. The plot is weak throughout and solution is open ended, hence Hunger Games, two - will Jennifer end up with her true boyfriend; will she have to volunteer for the games again (she'd have to survive because I believe there is a book three!!!!). Unfortunately, it did well at the box office and Hollywood loves a winner so there will be more coming... but I will not be watching.

Jennifer Lawrence could read the phone book and <hl> I would be fascinated <hl>. However, the plot of the Hunger Games is rather weak. Predicting the future has always been a stumbling block for most science fiction writers. We've seen plenty of versions regarding how terrible the future will be... going all the way back to Huxley and Wells. This one divides the country (I presume it is America) into the very wealthy and the very poor, with one poor person given the chance to survive a publically broadcast games that pit children against one another until only one is left standing. This is about as likely as never happening. The premise is so weak as to make the rest of the movie a joke. Supporting performances are also weak. The film relies almost entirely on special effects and the performances of Lawrence and veteran Donald Sutherland. While I love science fiction, I found the end did not justify the means. The plot is weak throughout and solution is open ended, hence Hunger Games, two - will Jennifer end up with her true boyfriend; will she have to volunteer for the games again (she'd have to survive because I believe there is a book three!!!!). Unfortunately, it did well at the box office and Hollywood loves a winner so there will be more coming... but I will not be watching.

Jennifer Lawrence could read the phone book and <hl> I would be fascinated <hl> .


Question: How is the movie?

Always been a Trekkie and this movie is awesome! I loved it from beginning to end and would watch it repeatedly if I could get away with it!

Answer: this movie is awesome

<hl> Always been a Trekkie and this movie is awesome ! <hl> I loved it from beginning to end and would watch it repeatedly if I could get away with it!

Always been a Trekkie and <hl> this movie is awesome <hl>! I loved it from beginning to end and would watch it repeatedly if I could get away with it!

Always been a Trekkie and <hl> this movie is awesome <hl> !


Question: What about story?

If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film.If you are, you'll like "Journey".This is a good family film. We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter.The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best.Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end.Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion.This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value.

Answer: you

<hl> If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film. <hl> If you are, you'll like "Journey". This is a good family film. We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter. The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best. Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end. Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion. This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value.

If <hl> you <hl> aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film.If you are, you'll like "Journey".This is a good family film. We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter.The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best.Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end.Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion.This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value.


Question: How you rate the film?

I agree with the other haters on this one.  I like Tarantino's work generally but this movie fell flat.  There are scenes that seem to go on forever with a bunch of uninteresting characters spouting boring dialog about things you don't care about.  ALL IN SUBTITLES!  Pitt's character is ridiculous as is the entire premise of the movie.I know it is a fantasy but it comes off as silliness as the plot and the situations portrayed in the film are completely asinine. It is also mildly disturbing that the horror of WWII is trivialized somewhat, if only it would have been that easy to kill the Nazis.I truly don't understand the rave reviews here. Tarantino rips off himself and other film cliches that have been done a million times before only better.  He is a spent force.

Answer: ridiculous

I agree with the other haters on this one. I like Tarantino's work generally but this movie fell flat. There are scenes that seem to go on forever with a bunch of uninteresting characters spouting boring dialog about things you don't care about. ALL IN SUBTITLES! <hl> Pitt's character is ridiculous as is the entire premise of the movie. <hl> I know it is a fantasy but it comes off as silliness as the plot and the situations portrayed in the film are completely asinine. It is also mildly disturbing that the horror of WWII is trivialized somewhat, if only it would have been that easy to kill the Nazis. I truly don't understand the rave reviews here. Tarantino rips off himself and other film cliches that have been done a million times before only better. He is a spent force.

I agree with the other haters on this one. I like Tarantino's work generally but this movie fell flat. There are scenes that seem to go on forever with a bunch of uninteresting characters spouting boring dialog about things you don't care about. ALL IN SUBTITLES! Pitt's character is <hl> ridiculous <hl> as is the entire premise of the movie.I know it is a fantasy but it comes off as silliness as the plot and the situations portrayed in the film are completely asinine. It is also mildly disturbing that the horror of WWII is trivialized somewhat, if only it would have been that easy to kill the Nazis.I truly don't understand the rave reviews here. Tarantino rips off himself and other film cliches that have been done a million times before only better. He is a spent force.