Question: How is the season?

Couples are central to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER throughout its seven-year run, so how might one pair the seasons themselves?If Seasons One and Two of BUFFY are Origin Years-- establishing the show's mythos in Season One, then stretching and deepening them in year Two-- then Seasons Three and Four are definitely Years of Consolidation, playing with, clarifying and reorganizing the show's fictional universe and strengthening the bond between show and viewer before diving into the darker, riskier events of Seasons Five and Six (which we might call Years of Daring and Yearning).  (What about Season Seven, you ask? Well, let's just leave it standing alone in the corner, looking at its shoes and crying because no one wants to hang with it (and can you blame them?)."Consolidation" has a compromised tone to it, but that's not what I mean. Seasons Three and Four are excellent.  It's not a question of quality, which on Buffy was almost always high, but tone-- these are more playful seasons than those that precede and follow, and there's a wittiness to the way in which series creator/auteur Joss Whedon puts his characters through their paces. Season Three, in particular-- from "Band Candy" and "Homecoming" through  "The Zeppo" and the mayor's speech in "Graduation Day"-- is full of humor.The brightness extends to the show's look-- Buffy switches from darker 16mm stock to 35mm, giving the show a brighter look. We see more of Sunnydale, here too--  coffee shops, town streets, and the glowing green sign of the Sunnydale cinema. Darkness doesn't disappear-- the show, particularly in the first half of the season, is forced to grapple with the events of the season that preceeded it-- but this is certainly Buffy's most optimistic season, and that optimism may account for its popularity with fans.  Season Three was the highest-rated of any Buffy year in the Nielsens, and this year and the next were the height of the show's media buzz.It speaks volumes about how Buffy juggles tones that I can write the above with absolute conviction and then turn around and tell you that the show grapples, in its first four episodes alone, with teen suicide, homelessness, broken families, the dark underbelly of fundamentalism, the return of a murderer, the arrival of a rival slayer, and a mayor who has cheerfully sold his soul to demonic forces.  To say nothing of such Buffy staples as the horror of high school, the mendacity of teenage cliques and the glorious pain of doomed love.So, ok, "optimism" and "wit" are relative terms.  There are moments in Season Three that are heartbreaking, times when characters must grapple with fear, loss, betrayal and disappointment.  The genius of Joss Whedon and his writers is that they give the fans exactly what they want...exactly when they *don't* want it.  Whedon is not a moralist (a type that almost always comes in for criticism and mockery on his shows), but his work does have an ethics to it-- there are consequences to actions, and every moment, good or bad, always contains an element of its opposite. Ambiguity reigns in the BuffyVerse, and Season Three, for all its humor, contains moments when even the most seemingly "innocent" of Buffy folk are held up for sympathetic scrutiny.Still, moreso than any other season, Season Three ultimately grants its characters a level of grace and closure unusual for this normally open-ended show.  Even the "villains" are more sympathetic than usual, and far more out in the open.  It normally takes the show several eps to establish what fans refer to as "the big bad" for the year, but here, in keeping with the lighter, open tone, it's established early on (by the third episode) that the season's uber-villain is the Mayor, a deceptively young-looking family man who was granted eternal life and great power by demonic forces.  The mayor is my favorite of all of the program's "big bads," a testament both to the ability of the writers to throw curve-balls at their audience and to the great humor and geniality that Harry Groener brings to the role.  Whether he's expounding on the genius of the FAMILY CIRCUS  ("That PJ!") or telling hard truths to Buffy and Angel, Groener always makes his villainy charming, almost incidental-- you *like* him, and he, like every one on the show, is granted moments of humanity and understanding rare in television characterizations (incidentally, it's been mentioned in interviews that the Mayor is based on series writer/producer (and later ANGEL co-creator) David Greenwalt, and once you know this, it is impossible to watch one of the many greenwalt interviews on the Buffy/Angel sets without laughing).I don't want to give away any plot twists, but I do want to make brief mention of: the arrival of Wesley-Windam Price, a character who will become more important in the program's spinoff, ANGEL;  the real-world arrival to the show of writer Jane Espenson, who will write more great Buffy eps over the remaining seasons than anyone aside from Joss Whedon; the wonderfully expanded role of Buffy's mom, played by the fabulous Kristine Sutherland, who has more good moments here than in any other year; the rough charm and deep passion Eliza Dushku brings to Faith, the rival vamp slayer; and the usual outstanding work of series regulars Sarah Michelle Gellar, Charisma Carpenter, David Boreanez, Seth Green, Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan, and the always amazing Anthony Stewart Head.The other way to divide the history of the show, of course, is between high school and post-high school seasons.  Season Three marks the dividing line between these two periods, and had the show ended here, it would have been logical and fulfilling, if also deeply disappointing.  The remaining seasons of Buffy find the characters shifting, growing, regressing, and hitting new depths (and the show, new heights). Challenges lay ahead, for both characters and fans, but that was good-- after all, no one wants to be happy *all* the time.

Answer: Seasons One and Two of BUFFY are Origin Years-- establishing the show's mythos in Season One

<hl> Couples are central to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER throughout its seven-year run, so how might one pair the seasons themselves?If Seasons One and Two of BUFFY are Origin Years-- establishing the show's mythos in Season One , then stretching and deepening them in year Two-- then Seasons Three and Four are definitely Years of Consolidation, playing with, clarifying and reorganizing the show's fictional universe and strengthening the bond between show and viewer before diving into the darker, riskier events of Seasons Five and Six (which we might call Years of Daring and Yearning). <hl> (What about Season Seven, you ask? Well, let's just leave it standing alone in the corner, looking at its shoes and crying because no one wants to hang with it (and can you blame them?)."Consolidation" has a compromised tone to it, but that's not what I mean. Seasons Three and Four are excellent. It's not a question of quality, which on Buffy was almost always high, but tone-- these are more playful seasons than those that precede and follow, and there's a wittiness to the way in which series creator/auteur Joss Whedon puts his characters through their paces. Season Three, in particular-- from "Band Candy" and "Homecoming" through "The Zeppo" and the mayor's speech in "Graduation Day"-- is full of humor. The brightness extends to the show's look-- Buffy switches from darker 16mm stock to 35mm, giving the show a brighter look. We see more of Sunnydale, here too-- coffee shops, town streets, and the glowing green sign of the Sunnydale cinema. Darkness doesn't disappear-- the show, particularly in the first half of the season, is forced to grapple with the events of the season that preceeded it-- but this is certainly Buffy's most optimistic season, and that optimism may account for its popularity with fans. Season Three was the highest-rated of any Buffy year in the Nielsens, and this year and the next were the height of the show's media buzz. It speaks volumes about how Buffy juggles tones that I can write the above with absolute conviction and then turn around and tell you that the show grapples, in its first four episodes alone, with teen suicide, homelessness, broken families, the dark underbelly of fundamentalism, the return of a murderer, the arrival of a rival slayer, and a mayor who has cheerfully sold his soul to demonic forces. To say nothing of such Buffy staples as the horror of high school, the mendacity of teenage cliques and the glorious pain of doomed love. So, ok, "optimism" and "wit" are relative terms. There are moments in Season Three that are heartbreaking, times when characters must grapple with fear, loss, betrayal and disappointment. The genius of Joss Whedon and his writers is that they give the fans exactly what they want...exactly when they *don't* want it. Whedon is not a moralist (a type that almost always comes in for criticism and mockery on his shows), but his work does have an ethics to it-- there are consequences to actions, and every moment, good or bad, always contains an element of its opposite. Ambiguity reigns in the BuffyVerse, and Season Three, for all its humor, contains moments when even the most seemingly "innocent" of Buffy folk are held up for sympathetic scrutiny. Still, moreso than any other season, Season Three ultimately grants its characters a level of grace and closure unusual for this normally open-ended show. Even the "villains" are more sympathetic than usual, and far more out in the open. It normally takes the show several eps to establish what fans refer to as "the big bad" for the year, but here, in keeping with the lighter, open tone, it's established early on (by the third episode) that the season's uber-villain is the Mayor, a deceptively young-looking family man who was granted eternal life and great power by demonic forces. The mayor is my favorite of all of the program's "big bads," a testament both to the ability of the writers to throw curve-balls at their audience and to the great humor and geniality that Harry Groener brings to the role. Whether he's expounding on the genius of the FAMILY CIRCUS ("That PJ!") or telling hard truths to Buffy and Angel, Groener always makes his villainy charming, almost incidental-- you *like* him, and he, like every one on the show, is granted moments of humanity and understanding rare in television characterizations (incidentally, it's been mentioned in interviews that the Mayor is based on series writer/producer (and later ANGEL co-creator) David Greenwalt, and once you know this, it is impossible to watch one of the many greenwalt interviews on the Buffy/Angel sets without laughing).I don't want to give away any plot twists, but I do want to make brief mention of: the arrival of Wesley-Windam Price, a character who will become more important in the program's spinoff, ANGEL; the real-world arrival to the show of writer Jane Espenson, who will write more great Buffy eps over the remaining seasons than anyone aside from Joss Whedon; the wonderfully expanded role of Buffy's mom, played by the fabulous Kristine Sutherland, who has more good moments here than in any other year; the rough charm and deep passion Eliza Dushku brings to Faith, the rival vamp slayer; and the usual outstanding work of series regulars Sarah Michelle Gellar, Charisma Carpenter, David Boreanez, Seth Green, Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan, and the always amazing Anthony Stewart Head. The other way to divide the history of the show, of course, is between high school and post-high school seasons. Season Three marks the dividing line between these two periods, and had the show ended here, it would have been logical and fulfilling, if also deeply disappointing. The remaining seasons of Buffy find the characters shifting, growing, regressing, and hitting new depths (and the show, new heights). Challenges lay ahead, for both characters and fans, but that was good-- after all, no one wants to be happy *all* the time.

Couples are central to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER throughout its seven-year run, so how might one pair the seasons themselves?If <hl> Seasons One and Two of BUFFY are Origin Years-- establishing the show's mythos in Season One <hl>, then stretching and deepening them in year Two-- then Seasons Three and Four are definitely Years of Consolidation, playing with, clarifying and reorganizing the show's fictional universe and strengthening the bond between show and viewer before diving into the darker, riskier events of Seasons Five and Six (which we might call Years of Daring and Yearning). (What about Season Seven, you ask? Well, let's just leave it standing alone in the corner, looking at its shoes and crying because no one wants to hang with it (and can you blame them?)."Consolidation" has a compromised tone to it, but that's not what I mean. Seasons Three and Four are excellent. It's not a question of quality, which on Buffy was almost always high, but tone-- these are more playful seasons than those that precede and follow, and there's a wittiness to the way in which series creator/auteur Joss Whedon puts his characters through their paces. Season Three, in particular-- from "Band Candy" and "Homecoming" through "The Zeppo" and the mayor's speech in "Graduation Day"-- is full of humor.The brightness extends to the show's look-- Buffy switches from darker 16mm stock to 35mm, giving the show a brighter look. We see more of Sunnydale, here too-- coffee shops, town streets, and the glowing green sign of the Sunnydale cinema. Darkness doesn't disappear-- the show, particularly in the first half of the season, is forced to grapple with the events of the season that preceeded it-- but this is certainly Buffy's most optimistic season, and that optimism may account for its popularity with fans. Season Three was the highest-rated of any Buffy year in the Nielsens, and this year and the next were the height of the show's media buzz.It speaks volumes about how Buffy juggles tones that I can write the above with absolute conviction and then turn around and tell you that the show grapples, in its first four episodes alone, with teen suicide, homelessness, broken families, the dark underbelly of fundamentalism, the return of a murderer, the arrival of a rival slayer, and a mayor who has cheerfully sold his soul to demonic forces. To say nothing of such Buffy staples as the horror of high school, the mendacity of teenage cliques and the glorious pain of doomed love.So, ok, "optimism" and "wit" are relative terms. There are moments in Season Three that are heartbreaking, times when characters must grapple with fear, loss, betrayal and disappointment. The genius of Joss Whedon and his writers is that they give the fans exactly what they want...exactly when they *don't* want it. Whedon is not a moralist (a type that almost always comes in for criticism and mockery on his shows), but his work does have an ethics to it-- there are consequences to actions, and every moment, good or bad, always contains an element of its opposite. Ambiguity reigns in the BuffyVerse, and Season Three, for all its humor, contains moments when even the most seemingly "innocent" of Buffy folk are held up for sympathetic scrutiny.Still, moreso than any other season, Season Three ultimately grants its characters a level of grace and closure unusual for this normally open-ended show. Even the "villains" are more sympathetic than usual, and far more out in the open. It normally takes the show several eps to establish what fans refer to as "the big bad" for the year, but here, in keeping with the lighter, open tone, it's established early on (by the third episode) that the season's uber-villain is the Mayor, a deceptively young-looking family man who was granted eternal life and great power by demonic forces. The mayor is my favorite of all of the program's "big bads," a testament both to the ability of the writers to throw curve-balls at their audience and to the great humor and geniality that Harry Groener brings to the role. Whether he's expounding on the genius of the FAMILY CIRCUS ("That PJ!") or telling hard truths to Buffy and Angel, Groener always makes his villainy charming, almost incidental-- you *like* him, and he, like every one on the show, is granted moments of humanity and understanding rare in television characterizations (incidentally, it's been mentioned in interviews that the Mayor is based on series writer/producer (and later ANGEL co-creator) David Greenwalt, and once you know this, it is impossible to watch one of the many greenwalt interviews on the Buffy/Angel sets without laughing).I don't want to give away any plot twists, but I do want to make brief mention of: the arrival of Wesley-Windam Price, a character who will become more important in the program's spinoff, ANGEL; the real-world arrival to the show of writer Jane Espenson, who will write more great Buffy eps over the remaining seasons than anyone aside from Joss Whedon; the wonderfully expanded role of Buffy's mom, played by the fabulous Kristine Sutherland, who has more good moments here than in any other year; the rough charm and deep passion Eliza Dushku brings to Faith, the rival vamp slayer; and the usual outstanding work of series regulars Sarah Michelle Gellar, Charisma Carpenter, David Boreanez, Seth Green, Nicholas Brendan, Alyson Hannigan, and the always amazing Anthony Stewart Head.The other way to divide the history of the show, of course, is between high school and post-high school seasons. Season Three marks the dividing line between these two periods, and had the show ended here, it would have been logical and fulfilling, if also deeply disappointing. The remaining seasons of Buffy find the characters shifting, growing, regressing, and hitting new depths (and the show, new heights). Challenges lay ahead, for both characters and fans, but that was good-- after all, no one wants to be happy *all* the time.

Couples are central to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER throughout its seven-year run, so how might one pair the seasons themselves?If <hl> Seasons One and Two of BUFFY are Origin Years-- establishing the show's mythos in Season One <hl> , then stretching and deepening them in year Two-- then Seasons Three and Four are definitely Years of Consolidation, playing with, clarifying and reorganizing the show's fictional universe and strengthening the bond between show and viewer before diving into the darker, riskier events of Seasons Five and Six (which we might call Years of Daring and Yearning).


Question: How many shocking moment are there in the movie?

I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments.  But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments.  Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman.  When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.'  But Max Fisher would have been a better actor.  The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves.  IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie.  The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences.  Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character.  Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own.  On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever.  Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone.  She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal.  But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be.  But maybe if he'd had a decent script.  I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial.  But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad.  [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive.  The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else.  This is creepy.  Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home.  I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite.  [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten.  Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie.  While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing.And that is the thing.  Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations.  And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show.  You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery.

Answer: few good moments

I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments. <hl> But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a few good moments . <hl> Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman. When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.' But Max Fisher would have been a better actor. The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves. IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie. The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences. Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character. Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own. On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever. Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone. She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal. But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be. But maybe if he'd had a decent script. I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial. But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad. [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive. The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else. This is creepy. Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home. I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite. [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten. Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie. While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing. And that is the thing. Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations. And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show. You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery.

I really wanted to like this movie, and, admittedly, there are some good moments. But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a <hl> few good moments <hl>. Here are the main problems, in no particular order:1) Brandon Routh is not a good Superman. When he is Clark Kent, he mostly closely resembles Max Fisher from `Rushmore.' But Max Fisher would have been a better actor. The worst thing is, and I don't know this was Routh's idea or Singer's, but he does a note-for-note impersonation of Christopher Reeves. IMO this is just plain ghoulish, considering that the beloved Reeves died just 2 years before this movie. The various James Bond actors have all played the character with at least slight differences. Each actor playing Superman has, up to this point, played the character very differently: Kirk Allyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, and Dean Caine each brought a different interpretation of the character. Why in heaven's name Singer had Routh simply ape Reeves is beyond all comprehension, unless Routh is simply so horrible an actor that he could not be allowed to make the role his own. On the plus side, Brandon Routh has caused me to give greater respect to Kirk Allyn, and to put George Reeves and Christopher Reeve upon even higher pedestals.2) Kate Bosworth is simply the weakest, blandest, most boring Lois Lane ever. Not only is there no chemistry with Routh, she has no chemistry with anyone. She appears simply to have been cast for physical attractiveness and demographic appeal. But on the upside, she enhances my already great appreciation of Noel Niell, Phyllis Coates, and Margot Kidder.3) Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor, and I guess you could say he gives a good performance here, but ultimately I think he is not quite what Lex Luthor should be. But maybe if he'd had a decent script. I don't object to Luthor being played as a closeted gay, Lyle Talbot played Luthor that way in the 1950 movie serial. But ultimately Spacey is a little camp in the role, even more camp than Gene Hackman in 1978.4) Ultimately, the script is bad. [SPOILER ALERT:] As much as it must have simply reeked with dramatic temptations, the idea that shortly after bedding Lois, Superman would just fly off into space for 5 years is absurd and offensive. The real Superman, being raised on Kansas farm, would have too much Midwestern sexual guilt to permit him to just desert Lois for 5 years while she incubates his baby and marries someone else. This is creepy. Also, there is a scene in which Superman uses his X-ray vision to spy at Lois, her husband and baby in their home. I'm sorry, but Superman should not be a Superstalker.5) Speaking of the script, there is a lack of internal logic regarding kryptonite. [SPOILER ALERT:] Supposedly the kryptonite in Luthor's artificial island makes Superman as weak as drugged kitten. Yet 15 minutes later, Superman is supposedly able to lift the whole daggum island up and carry it into outer space.6) There is the reuse of Marlon Brando's voice and John Williams' musical score from the 1978 Superman movie. While these things were good in the original context, in this film they, along with his star's attempt to channel Christopher Reeve serve to create the impression that Bryan Singer really has nothing new to add to the Superman mythos, that he is flailing blindly here, creating sound and fury, but signifying nothing.And that is the thing. Nothing that is new in this film is any good, and all the good things were already done in various, earlier celluloid incarnations. And so, the upside is that this DVD has sent me happily back the `Adventures of Superman' TV show. You are far better off viewing those concise and charming episodes than in owning this pretentious piece of grave robbery.

But seeing as the studio gave Bryan Singer all the money in the world, plenty of time, and quite a bit of creative control and artistic license (I cannot imagine that DC comics was eager to have Superman portrayed as a deadbeat dad!), there should be more than just a <hl> few good moments <hl> .


Question: What was an impeccable act?

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is an epic movie in every way.  I normally don't like fantasy-based movies but this one just blew me away. I enjoyed every minute of the 3 1/2 hours. I was hooked from beginning to end. It's rare that a movie of that length would keep anyone interested for that long. BUT IT DID! It was awesome. Visually it was excellent but the characters and the storyline is what will keep you hooked. The Characters are awesome. The acting was amazing. It was dramatic, emotional, and action-packed. The basic plot is about a hobbit (played oh so well by Elijah Wood) that acquires a ring of dark power and he has to destroy it. A lot unfolds along the way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is pure magic and the ending leaves you craving parts 2 and 3.

Answer: The acting was amazing

The acting was amazing .

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is an epic movie in every way. I normally don't like fantasy-based movies but this one just blew me away. I enjoyed every minute of the 3 1/2 hours. I was hooked from beginning to end. It's rare that a movie of that length would keep anyone interested for that long. BUT IT DID! It was awesome. Visually it was excellent but the characters and the storyline is what will keep you hooked. The Characters are awesome. <hl> The acting was amazing . <hl> It was dramatic, emotional, and action-packed. The basic plot is about a hobbit (played oh so well by Elijah Wood) that acquires a ring of dark power and he has to destroy it. A lot unfolds along the way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is pure magic and the ending leaves you craving parts 2 and 3.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is an epic movie in every way. I normally don't like fantasy-based movies but this one just blew me away. I enjoyed every minute of the 3 1/2 hours. I was hooked from beginning to end. It's rare that a movie of that length would keep anyone interested for that long. BUT IT DID! It was awesome. Visually it was excellent but the characters and the storyline is what will keep you hooked. The Characters are awesome. <hl> The acting was amazing <hl>. It was dramatic, emotional, and action-packed. The basic plot is about a hobbit (played oh so well by Elijah Wood) that acquires a ring of dark power and he has to destroy it. A lot unfolds along the way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is pure magic and the ending leaves you craving parts 2 and 3.


Question: How about the quality of the details?

I thought this movie was fantastic.  As good a picture as any Pixar film.  The animation is very special and in 3D it is wow.I loved this movie. It was thoughtful and full of action and funny and scary and wise.  It had everything. Plus it was a realoriginal. I just loved it and thought it was everything I would want in an animated film. It had guts and it had heart.

Answer: animation is very special and in 3D

I thought this movie was fantastic. As good a picture as any Pixar film. <hl> The animation is very special and in 3D it is wow. <hl> I loved this movie. It was thoughtful and full of action and funny and scary and wise. It had everything. Plus it was a realoriginal. I just loved it and thought it was everything I would want in an animated film. It had guts and it had heart.

I thought this movie was fantastic. As good a picture as any Pixar film. The <hl> animation is very special and in 3D <hl> it is wow.I loved this movie. It was thoughtful and full of action and funny and scary and wise. It had everything. Plus it was a realoriginal. I just loved it and thought it was everything I would want in an animated film. It had guts and it had heart.


Question: Where can I see the player act?

I didn't bother to see this at the theater because I was so disappointed with Spider Man 3.  Man was I wrong to resist it.  This is by far the best of the 4 movies.  The acting was much better, the script was emotional, but not hokey.  Sure, they made teenagers seem like 30 something adults when it came to love and responsibility (I don't remember being that in control of myself), but there was also a giant lizard/human involved so reality was not the point.  Great movie.

Answer: The acting was much better, the script was emotional

I didn't bother to see this at the theater because I was so disappointed with Spider Man 3. Man was I wrong to resist it. This is by far the best of the 4 movies. <hl> The acting was much better, the script was emotional , but not hokey. <hl> Sure, they made teenagers seem like 30 something adults when it came to love and responsibility (I don't remember being that in control of myself), but there was also a giant lizard/human involved so reality was not the point. Great movie.

I didn't bother to see this at the theater because I was so disappointed with Spider Man 3. Man was I wrong to resist it. This is by far the best of the 4 movies. <hl> The acting was much better, the script was emotional <hl>, but not hokey. Sure, they made teenagers seem like 30 something adults when it came to love and responsibility (I don't remember being that in control of myself), but there was also a giant lizard/human involved so reality was not the point. Great movie.

<hl> The acting was much better, the script was emotional <hl> , but not hokey.


Question: How is the book?

After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye.The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment.Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been.Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less.

Answer: the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost

After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? <hl> In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost . <hl> For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye. The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment. Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been. Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less.

After much hype and anticipation, the whimsical world of Harry Potter is finally brought to life on the big screen in its first feature film. When Warner Brothers bought the rights to the famous children's book series, millions waited in utter anticipation for the adaptation of the first book and executives at the studio were just biting at the bit to accept the money of Mr. Potter's legion of loyal fans. But this was far from an easy task for the movie studio. Why? In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to <hl> the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost <hl>. For if this does not happen, Warner Brothers executives can kiss those potential profits on sequels good-bye.The story focuses on the adventures of a young boy in England who discovers he is actually a wizard in training and that he is to be taken to a school, far from the world of the muggles (or non-magical folk) that he has grown up with all his life. After losing his parents when he was a baby, Harry Potter now resides with his terrible adopted family that consists of his boorish uncle, his snippy aunt, and spoiled, brutish cousin. But one day, he learns that he has been accepted to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When he arrives in the magic world of wizards and witches, he is overwhelmed to find out that he is one of the most famous sorcerers of all time m due to his confrontation, and evidential defeat of, the evil Lord Voldemort as a baby. But he no sooner puts he foot through the door then the trouble starts, whether it be the up-tight Professor Snape or the spoiled Draco Malfroy. After many strange events around the school, it is up to Harry and his new friends to stop an evil creature from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone which could bring about the re-generation of Lord Valdemort. The story for Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is done marvelously well but not based on material from the book. When going to see this film, don't go into it basing it on the book. You'll only be left with disappointment.Though most of the performances were played out by young actors and actresses, those performances were done in such a way that they were sophisticated for the age of the performers and therefore surprising. Daniel Radcliffe fits perfectly into the lead role of Harry Potter but the real determining factor will be if Radcliffe can keep that outstanding persona in this role as he matures through the sequels. Overall the performers seem well suited to their roles but that is not fully realized in the beginning. Only over a period of time in the film do the actors feel fully comfortable in their roles. The only disappointment has to be with John Cleese's Sir Nicholas, which was shown as nearly as much as he probably should have been.Overall, the mystical and extraordinary world of Harry Potter is brought to life in a way that many wouldn't have thought possible years ago and, though the film may differ from the book from time to time, even the most hardcore of Potter followers will be happy with this first film adaptation. Not to say it is absolutely perfect, there are some minor things to complain about. The time length, which stood at two hours and thirty minutes, seemed way too long for a feature at younger children. Granted they probably won't care too much since their eyes will be glued to the screen but that can problem based on potty breaks or something to that effect. Another problem deals with the editing of the movie. As an example, the burnt roof of Hogwarts that was not present in one scene was shown in the next with no explanation to what happened. But outside of those small problems, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful treat during the holiday season but not near the same level as Disney/Pixar's Monsters Inc. but a great film none the less.

In order to produce a magnificent achievement for the paying customers, the movie must remain true (to an extent) to <hl> the books created by J.K. Rowling and the whimsy and fantasy of those tales must remain no matter the cost <hl> .


Question: Where can I see the player act?

I had to reconsider both my original review of this flick and "Clones" after having actually watched both movies w/I a week of each other.  After the initial letdown of "Episode-I", I was ready to jump on the "Episode-II" bandwagon.  In retrospect, while they both share some flaws, in many respects "Menace" is actually superior to "Clones"."The Phantom Menace" has a comparatively simple plot - an intergalactic commercial group called the "Trade Federation" suddenly turns militant in the face of burdensome taxation.  They blockade the backwater world of Naboo, threatening an all-out war if their demands aren't met.  Why the Federation has taken that strategy is a mystery to the ruling government - the Senate of the Intergalactic Republic.  Because the galaxy is largely at peace (except for pockets of lawlessness) there is no standing army.  Instead, the Republic relies on the Jedi Knights - warriors schooled in the power of The Force - to maintain peace.  When Jedi Knights Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) find themselves unable to forestall a war, they rescue Naboo's elected ruler Queen Amidala (Portman) from certain capture.  Having escaped the Federation, Amidala's damaged ship is forced to make emergency repairs on an even more remote planet - Tatooine.  Needing parts to fix their ship, and with nobody willing to accept their Republic Credits (even when prodded by Jedi mind tricks), Qui Gonn and Padme (one of the queen's loyal handmaidens) enlist the help of a local slave named Anakin.  He's just a kid, but even Qui-Gonn can tell that the boy has the power of the force flowing through him.  Soon the quest to repair the ship and escape to the Capitol of the Republic includes a mission to save Anakin as well, determine the nature of the Force energy coursing through him and to evaluate him for entry into the Jedi.This flick was a letdown in many ways, but it does have some qualities that survive repeat viewings.  Visually, it is spectacular - the final dogfight between the Federation and the Naboo was not topped or even equaled in "Clones".  Both films have epic battles involving computer-animated combatants, but the Gungans have more character than the clone army (though I wouldn't want to face-off either side, ridiculous characters are better than none at all, and the clones are utterly lacking in that area).  The story is simple - though the more complex plot of "Clones", with its many continuity lapses and gaps reveal that its makers have a narrative problem which is best served by keepings things simple.  Both films are marked by an epic Jedi duel, though the one in "Clones" was strikingly unspectacular.  Christopher Lee as Dooku also demonstrated that he can function quite well as an all-around lord of Evil in "The Lord of the Rings", but the script gives him little to do, and the story can't make up its mind as to whether we're supposed to think he might be good, or banish any idea that he's not utterly evil.  In contrast, Ray Park as Darth Maul is utterly drenched in evil, his face and body language communicating a very palpable sense of the Sith - the force of evil Jedi ready to tear the galactic order to shreds.  Maul's battle royale - alone against Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan easily rivals that between Vader and Luke from "Return of the Jedi" in its narrative coherency, and is only clearly topped in that respect by Luke and Vader's duel from "Empire".  While we can lament that "Episode One" wasn't the kind of film that grabbed us from our first viewing (like "Star Wars" or "Raiders") it's still a film that can grab us.  Just make sure you give it some room, and wide-screen DVD with which to do it.

Answer: wide-screen DVD

I had to reconsider both my original review of this flick and "Clones" after having actually watched both movies w/I a week of each other. After the initial letdown of "Episode-I", I was ready to jump on the "Episode-II" bandwagon. In retrospect, while they both share some flaws, in many respects "Menace" is actually superior to "Clones". "The Phantom Menace" has a comparatively simple plot - an intergalactic commercial group called the "Trade Federation" suddenly turns militant in the face of burdensome taxation. They blockade the backwater world of Naboo, threatening an all-out war if their demands aren't met. Why the Federation has taken that strategy is a mystery to the ruling government - the Senate of the Intergalactic Republic. Because the galaxy is largely at peace (except for pockets of lawlessness) there is no standing army. Instead, the Republic relies on the Jedi Knights - warriors schooled in the power of The Force - to maintain peace. When Jedi Knights Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) find themselves unable to forestall a war, they rescue Naboo's elected ruler Queen Amidala (Portman) from certain capture. Having escaped the Federation, Amidala's damaged ship is forced to make emergency repairs on an even more remote planet - Tatooine. Needing parts to fix their ship, and with nobody willing to accept their Republic Credits (even when prodded by Jedi mind tricks), Qui Gonn and Padme (one of the queen's loyal handmaidens) enlist the help of a local slave named Anakin. He's just a kid, but even Qui-Gonn can tell that the boy has the power of the force flowing through him. Soon the quest to repair the ship and escape to the Capitol of the Republic includes a mission to save Anakin as well, determine the nature of the Force energy coursing through him and to evaluate him for entry into the Jedi. This flick was a letdown in many ways, but it does have some qualities that survive repeat viewings. Visually, it is spectacular - the final dogfight between the Federation and the Naboo was not topped or even equaled in "Clones". Both films have epic battles involving computer-animated combatants, but the Gungans have more character than the clone army (though I wouldn't want to face-off either side, ridiculous characters are better than none at all, and the clones are utterly lacking in that area). The story is simple - though the more complex plot of "Clones", with its many continuity lapses and gaps reveal that its makers have a narrative problem which is best served by keepings things simple. Both films are marked by an epic Jedi duel, though the one in "Clones" was strikingly unspectacular. Christopher Lee as Dooku also demonstrated that he can function quite well as an all-around lord of Evil in "The Lord of the Rings", but the script gives him little to do, and the story can't make up its mind as to whether we're supposed to think he might be good, or banish any idea that he's not utterly evil. In contrast, Ray Park as Darth Maul is utterly drenched in evil, his face and body language communicating a very palpable sense of the Sith - the force of evil Jedi ready to tear the galactic order to shreds. Maul's battle royale - alone against Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan easily rivals that between Vader and Luke from "Return of the Jedi" in its narrative coherency, and is only clearly topped in that respect by Luke and Vader's duel from "Empire". While we can lament that "Episode One" wasn't the kind of film that grabbed us from our first viewing (like "Star Wars" or "Raiders") it's still a film that can grab us. <hl> Just make sure you give it some room, and wide-screen DVD with which to do it. <hl>

I had to reconsider both my original review of this flick and "Clones" after having actually watched both movies w/I a week of each other. After the initial letdown of "Episode-I", I was ready to jump on the "Episode-II" bandwagon. In retrospect, while they both share some flaws, in many respects "Menace" is actually superior to "Clones"."The Phantom Menace" has a comparatively simple plot - an intergalactic commercial group called the "Trade Federation" suddenly turns militant in the face of burdensome taxation. They blockade the backwater world of Naboo, threatening an all-out war if their demands aren't met. Why the Federation has taken that strategy is a mystery to the ruling government - the Senate of the Intergalactic Republic. Because the galaxy is largely at peace (except for pockets of lawlessness) there is no standing army. Instead, the Republic relies on the Jedi Knights - warriors schooled in the power of The Force - to maintain peace. When Jedi Knights Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) find themselves unable to forestall a war, they rescue Naboo's elected ruler Queen Amidala (Portman) from certain capture. Having escaped the Federation, Amidala's damaged ship is forced to make emergency repairs on an even more remote planet - Tatooine. Needing parts to fix their ship, and with nobody willing to accept their Republic Credits (even when prodded by Jedi mind tricks), Qui Gonn and Padme (one of the queen's loyal handmaidens) enlist the help of a local slave named Anakin. He's just a kid, but even Qui-Gonn can tell that the boy has the power of the force flowing through him. Soon the quest to repair the ship and escape to the Capitol of the Republic includes a mission to save Anakin as well, determine the nature of the Force energy coursing through him and to evaluate him for entry into the Jedi.This flick was a letdown in many ways, but it does have some qualities that survive repeat viewings. Visually, it is spectacular - the final dogfight between the Federation and the Naboo was not topped or even equaled in "Clones". Both films have epic battles involving computer-animated combatants, but the Gungans have more character than the clone army (though I wouldn't want to face-off either side, ridiculous characters are better than none at all, and the clones are utterly lacking in that area). The story is simple - though the more complex plot of "Clones", with its many continuity lapses and gaps reveal that its makers have a narrative problem which is best served by keepings things simple. Both films are marked by an epic Jedi duel, though the one in "Clones" was strikingly unspectacular. Christopher Lee as Dooku also demonstrated that he can function quite well as an all-around lord of Evil in "The Lord of the Rings", but the script gives him little to do, and the story can't make up its mind as to whether we're supposed to think he might be good, or banish any idea that he's not utterly evil. In contrast, Ray Park as Darth Maul is utterly drenched in evil, his face and body language communicating a very palpable sense of the Sith - the force of evil Jedi ready to tear the galactic order to shreds. Maul's battle royale - alone against Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan easily rivals that between Vader and Luke from "Return of the Jedi" in its narrative coherency, and is only clearly topped in that respect by Luke and Vader's duel from "Empire". While we can lament that "Episode One" wasn't the kind of film that grabbed us from our first viewing (like "Star Wars" or "Raiders") it's still a film that can grab us. Just make sure you give it some room, and <hl> wide-screen DVD <hl> with which to do it.


Question: How is the storyline in this new version compared to the original version?

In the summer of 2010, Illumination Entertainment's animated flick, Despicable Me, decimated the box office, earning $543 million - not to mention garnering praise from fans and critics alike.  A family-friendly film, Despicable Me follows Gru, an evil super villain, as he adopts three girls with hopes of using them to one-up a rival super villain.  Instead, he falls into the role of devoted father, giving up on his evil ways.  Most notably, the film also introduces the Minions - Gru's short, yellow workers that speak gibberish and often find themselves engaging in an endless amount of comical hijinks.  Now, Gru and his Minions are back, along with Agnes, Edith, and Margo in the animated sequel, Despicable Me 2.Directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud return to direct Despicable Me 2, which once again stars Steve Carrell as Gru - a now retired super-villain that's attempting to create his own brand of jelly.  At the same time, a mysterious villain has stolen a chemical recipe that can turn living things into indestructible purple killing machines.  Desperate to stop the mysterious villain, the Anti-Villain League (AVL) enlists Gru's help, pairing him with an AVL agent, Lucy Wilde (Kristen Wigg), to track down the villain and stop them before they unleash the recipe on the world.  The voices of Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaaier, Elsie Fisher, Ken Jeong, Russell Brand, and Benjamin Bratt also star in supporting roles.To be honest, I found Despicable Me to be so light-heartedly entertaining and enjoyable that's it's easily at the top of my animated feature list (just so you know that I'm being biased here).  With that being said, Despicable Me 2 has been one of my must-see movies all summer long...and it didn't disappoint me one bit.  As an easy target for slap-stick comedy (and I'll give you one guess who my favorite comedy trio is), the Minions are good for wholesome unadulterated laughter.  As usual, their antics and gibberish talk will have you laughing to the limit - but only if you're interested in that sort of thing.  It's easy to imagine Despicable Me being everyone's favorite animated feature, or quite honestly the animated film you'll never want to see again.  Just because The Three Stooges brand of humor is my thing doesn't mean it's going to agree with everyone's style of humor.  In fact, it's pretty easy to imagine someone describing a film of this nature as being "dumb" or "pointless."  However, if that's how you felt about the first film, I couldn't disagree with you more.While the first film focused more on the girls and their quest to find a home to call their own (and a father to care for them), Despicable Me 2 focuses much more on the Minions.  In fact, at a short 90 minutes or so, it almost feels like the girls are absent from the film entirely.  Speaking of a reduced role, Russell Brand's character, Dr. Nefariou (although important to the film's climax) is also absent for the majority of the film.  However, that's not to say the film isn't without enjoyable characters.  Between the Minions and the plump villain in question, Eduardo Perez (originally voiced by Al Pacino, but changed to Benjamin Bratt just months before the film's release date), there's no shortage of memorable moments.  At the same time, there's love in the air throughout the film with the introduction of the ambitious Lucky Wilde, who (if you couldn't tell from the film's trailer) has a pretty memorable first meeting with Gru.There's not a whole lot to say about this film that wasn't said about the first film.  It's a family-friendly flick that absolutely anyone can enjoy.  The animation is sharp, colorful, and pristine.  Plus, the characters will have you giggling virtually nonstop.  While I'm admittedly not a huge Steve Carrell fan, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Gru - so with that being said, this is the one exception where I would be writing someone a letter on Mr. Carrell's behalf if for some reason he was ever replaced.  Regardless, the characters are clearly catching on in popularity - especially the Minions who will be getting a movie of their own, called Minions (hitting theaters in December 2014).  And, as long as the plot is solid (which it is) and the Minions are funny (which they are), Illumination Entertainment can keep punching out as many Despicable Me films as they want.P.S. - Make sure to stay through the credits.  The Minions will be taking auditions for their new film next year.Grade:  B+FNDNreview.com

Answer: Most notably

In the summer of 2010, Illumination Entertainment's animated flick, Despicable Me, decimated the box office, earning $543 million - not to mention garnering praise from fans and critics alike. A family-friendly film, Despicable Me follows Gru, an evil super villain, as he adopts three girls with hopes of using them to one-up a rival super villain. Instead, he falls into the role of devoted father, giving up on his evil ways. <hl> Most notably , the film also introduces the Minions - Gru's short, yellow workers that speak gibberish and often find themselves engaging in an endless amount of comical hijinks. <hl> Now, Gru and his Minions are back, along with Agnes, Edith, and Margo in the animated sequel, Despicable Me 2.Directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud return to direct Despicable Me 2, which once again stars Steve Carrell as Gru - a now retired super-villain that's attempting to create his own brand of jelly. At the same time, a mysterious villain has stolen a chemical recipe that can turn living things into indestructible purple killing machines. Desperate to stop the mysterious villain, the Anti-Villain League (AVL) enlists Gru's help, pairing him with an AVL agent, Lucy Wilde (Kristen Wigg), to track down the villain and stop them before they unleash the recipe on the world. The voices of Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaaier, Elsie Fisher, Ken Jeong, Russell Brand, and Benjamin Bratt also star in supporting roles. To be honest, I found Despicable Me to be so light-heartedly entertaining and enjoyable that's it's easily at the top of my animated feature list (just so you know that I'm being biased here). With that being said, Despicable Me 2 has been one of my must-see movies all summer long...and it didn't disappoint me one bit. As an easy target for slap-stick comedy (and I'll give you one guess who my favorite comedy trio is), the Minions are good for wholesome unadulterated laughter. As usual, their antics and gibberish talk will have you laughing to the limit - but only if you're interested in that sort of thing. It's easy to imagine Despicable Me being everyone's favorite animated feature, or quite honestly the animated film you'll never want to see again. Just because The Three Stooges brand of humor is my thing doesn't mean it's going to agree with everyone's style of humor. In fact, it's pretty easy to imagine someone describing a film of this nature as being "dumb" or "pointless." However, if that's how you felt about the first film, I couldn't disagree with you more. While the first film focused more on the girls and their quest to find a home to call their own (and a father to care for them), Despicable Me 2 focuses much more on the Minions. In fact, at a short 90 minutes or so, it almost feels like the girls are absent from the film entirely. Speaking of a reduced role, Russell Brand's character, Dr. Nefariou (although important to the film's climax) is also absent for the majority of the film. However, that's not to say the film isn't without enjoyable characters. Between the Minions and the plump villain in question, Eduardo Perez (originally voiced by Al Pacino, but changed to Benjamin Bratt just months before the film's release date), there's no shortage of memorable moments. At the same time, there's love in the air throughout the film with the introduction of the ambitious Lucky Wilde, who (if you couldn't tell from the film's trailer) has a pretty memorable first meeting with Gru. There's not a whole lot to say about this film that wasn't said about the first film. It's a family-friendly flick that absolutely anyone can enjoy. The animation is sharp, colorful, and pristine. Plus, the characters will have you giggling virtually nonstop. While I'm admittedly not a huge Steve Carrell fan, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Gru - so with that being said, this is the one exception where I would be writing someone a letter on Mr. Carrell's behalf if for some reason he was ever replaced. Regardless, the characters are clearly catching on in popularity - especially the Minions who will be getting a movie of their own, called Minions (hitting theaters in December 2014). And, as long as the plot is solid (which it is) and the Minions are funny (which they are), Illumination Entertainment can keep punching out as many Despicable Me films as they want. P.S. - Make sure to stay through the credits. The Minions will be taking auditions for their new film next year. Grade: B+FNDNreview.com

In the summer of 2010, Illumination Entertainment's animated flick, Despicable Me, decimated the box office, earning $543 million - not to mention garnering praise from fans and critics alike. A family-friendly film, Despicable Me follows Gru, an evil super villain, as he adopts three girls with hopes of using them to one-up a rival super villain. Instead, he falls into the role of devoted father, giving up on his evil ways. <hl> Most notably <hl>, the film also introduces the Minions - Gru's short, yellow workers that speak gibberish and often find themselves engaging in an endless amount of comical hijinks. Now, Gru and his Minions are back, along with Agnes, Edith, and Margo in the animated sequel, Despicable Me 2.Directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud return to direct Despicable Me 2, which once again stars Steve Carrell as Gru - a now retired super-villain that's attempting to create his own brand of jelly. At the same time, a mysterious villain has stolen a chemical recipe that can turn living things into indestructible purple killing machines. Desperate to stop the mysterious villain, the Anti-Villain League (AVL) enlists Gru's help, pairing him with an AVL agent, Lucy Wilde (Kristen Wigg), to track down the villain and stop them before they unleash the recipe on the world. The voices of Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaaier, Elsie Fisher, Ken Jeong, Russell Brand, and Benjamin Bratt also star in supporting roles.To be honest, I found Despicable Me to be so light-heartedly entertaining and enjoyable that's it's easily at the top of my animated feature list (just so you know that I'm being biased here). With that being said, Despicable Me 2 has been one of my must-see movies all summer long...and it didn't disappoint me one bit. As an easy target for slap-stick comedy (and I'll give you one guess who my favorite comedy trio is), the Minions are good for wholesome unadulterated laughter. As usual, their antics and gibberish talk will have you laughing to the limit - but only if you're interested in that sort of thing. It's easy to imagine Despicable Me being everyone's favorite animated feature, or quite honestly the animated film you'll never want to see again. Just because The Three Stooges brand of humor is my thing doesn't mean it's going to agree with everyone's style of humor. In fact, it's pretty easy to imagine someone describing a film of this nature as being "dumb" or "pointless." However, if that's how you felt about the first film, I couldn't disagree with you more.While the first film focused more on the girls and their quest to find a home to call their own (and a father to care for them), Despicable Me 2 focuses much more on the Minions. In fact, at a short 90 minutes or so, it almost feels like the girls are absent from the film entirely. Speaking of a reduced role, Russell Brand's character, Dr. Nefariou (although important to the film's climax) is also absent for the majority of the film. However, that's not to say the film isn't without enjoyable characters. Between the Minions and the plump villain in question, Eduardo Perez (originally voiced by Al Pacino, but changed to Benjamin Bratt just months before the film's release date), there's no shortage of memorable moments. At the same time, there's love in the air throughout the film with the introduction of the ambitious Lucky Wilde, who (if you couldn't tell from the film's trailer) has a pretty memorable first meeting with Gru.There's not a whole lot to say about this film that wasn't said about the first film. It's a family-friendly flick that absolutely anyone can enjoy. The animation is sharp, colorful, and pristine. Plus, the characters will have you giggling virtually nonstop. While I'm admittedly not a huge Steve Carrell fan, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Gru - so with that being said, this is the one exception where I would be writing someone a letter on Mr. Carrell's behalf if for some reason he was ever replaced. Regardless, the characters are clearly catching on in popularity - especially the Minions who will be getting a movie of their own, called Minions (hitting theaters in December 2014). And, as long as the plot is solid (which it is) and the Minions are funny (which they are), Illumination Entertainment can keep punching out as many Despicable Me films as they want.P.S. - Make sure to stay through the credits. The Minions will be taking auditions for their new film next year.Grade: B+FNDNreview.com

<hl> Most notably <hl> , the film also introduces the Minions - Gru's short, yellow workers that speak gibberish and often find themselves engaging in an endless amount of comical hijinks.


Question: How is the violence?

While not a great film, and surely nothing groundbreakingly original, "High Tension" can least bost it is the first movie in a long while in which its title acurately depicts the film it is attached to.  More suspenseful and disturbing than technically scary, "Constant Tension" might be the only better way to describe this efficient little thriller that gets going quick and never stops until its unfortunate head-scratcher of a conclusion.  But the simple fact that it continues to move is more than you can say for most horror movies now-a-days (witness the hour it takes for anything to happen in the recent and dreadful remake of "House of Wax"), but the film's pleasures are far more than its pace alone.With no self-indulgent over-length, or grandiose attempts at unnecesary plot and character development, "High Tension" is smart enough to follow the less-is-more storytelling path and realize the best and biggest scares are the most primative.  Hollywood, in all its bigger-is-better wisdom, never seems to learn that melting houses of wax and special effect spirits that attack from within the TV set will never be a substitute for, or as effectively frightning as, the idea that any of us can be brutally attacked at any moment, no matter what, if some one is fearless and dermined enough to do so.  No, I would not want to meet-up with Freddy or Jason, but I think my chances of avoiding them, at least in this lifetime, are pretty safe.  Some crazy guy breaking into my house and slaughtering my whole family, stalking the house, not leaving until he has made sure to horribly kill eveyone...  That is not only possible, but terrifying as hell.Obviously it is not a pleasant scenario, but "High Tension" is far from a pleasant film.  Truth be told, this movie is not for everyone.  Even horror fans may be put off.  This movie is not for the Freddy, Jason, "Scream," or "The Grudge," type of horror movie fan.  "High Tension," is of a sicker, more brutal mold.  It is more akin to "Texas Chainsaw Masacre," or "Last House on the Left," although perhaps more gory and terrifying than either. (I know, "Texas Chainsaw" is famous for having very little actual blood, but everyone assuming there was a ton because of all the violent images and the movie was so terrifying and twisted; well "High Tension" is terrifying and twisted and DOES have a ton of blood.)  The violence and gore are severe and off-putting, which is a shame because the movie is such an effective suspense thriller beyond these moments that people who are looking for nerve-frying suspense of a classic nature, but can't stomach the carnage will be missing out.I have seen some reviews here that make light of the violence; many saying the film is laughable and stupid because of it.  I agree, it is over the top.  In a movie like "Kill Bill" or "Evil Dead," for instance, a neck spewing blood after the head is severd gets a laugh because the tone of the film is satiracle.  "High Tension" is not playing its violence for laughs.  The senarios in which the violence is prestented here make it quite jarring.It is to the director's credit that "High Tension" so realistically creates an atmosphere of dread and desperateness (hence the 'tension').  There were a couple of times when I was pleasantly surprised to find what I thought I knew was going to happen didn't, or moments I thought were implausible or a leap of logic were explained away with later plot developments.The only thing I take issue with in this film is the big twist ending, which, looking at reviews here, seems to be what everyone is questioning.  The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it doesn't work.  And it is also rather pointless.  In a film this straight-forward about its scares and old fashioned in its execution, it is surprising it felt the need to slap on a gotcha! ending.  It isn't a total abomination, though, and it hardly ruins all the suspence the movie provided for the previous 90 minutes.  I do wish filmmakers would learn, though, somethings don't need to be explained.  Some people are just crazy, sadistic and evil.  And if there must be an explination it doesn't have to be the most surprising thing that the writer can think of.  Often this means it is also the most outlandish and implausible thing he could think of as well.I still respect the ending on a small level though because at least it is trying to do something unique and clever.  Even though it ultimately fails, it is more than I can say for most movies of this type and gets an A for effort.I watched this movie right after the insipid "House of Wax."  That movie was pure drivel.  An insulting waste of time that existed for no other reason than to cash in on a familiar title, the current crop of teen-slasher flicks and Paris Hilton.  There was nothing new or good about any moment of it.  Yet every few weekends Hollywood turns out a movie similar to it.  For a fraction of "Wax's" budget, with a fraction of its set pieces and none of its recognizable names, "High Tension" has 100 times its suspense.  With them both staring at you from the video shelves this Halloween, make sure you make the right choice."High Tension" may not give you nightmares for weeks to come, and it may be too slight a fixture in the marketplace to ever be considered a true classic, but while it has you tied up and along for its disturbing, fast-paced ride, it will always keep your nerves frazzled.

Answer: The violence and gore are severe and off

While not a great film, and surely nothing groundbreakingly original, "High Tension" can least bost it is the first movie in a long while in which its title acurately depicts the film it is attached to. More suspenseful and disturbing than technically scary, "Constant Tension" might be the only better way to describe this efficient little thriller that gets going quick and never stops until its unfortunate head-scratcher of a conclusion. But the simple fact that it continues to move is more than you can say for most horror movies now-a-days (witness the hour it takes for anything to happen in the recent and dreadful remake of "House of Wax"), but the film's pleasures are far more than its pace alone. With no self-indulgent over-length, or grandiose attempts at unnecesary plot and character development, "High Tension" is smart enough to follow the less-is-more storytelling path and realize the best and biggest scares are the most primative. Hollywood, in all its bigger-is-better wisdom, never seems to learn that melting houses of wax and special effect spirits that attack from within the TV set will never be a substitute for, or as effectively frightning as, the idea that any of us can be brutally attacked at any moment, no matter what, if some one is fearless and dermined enough to do so. No, I would not want to meet-up with Freddy or Jason, but I think my chances of avoiding them, at least in this lifetime, are pretty safe. Some crazy guy breaking into my house and slaughtering my whole family, stalking the house, not leaving until he has made sure to horribly kill eveyone... That is not only possible, but terrifying as hell. Obviously it is not a pleasant scenario, but "High Tension" is far from a pleasant film. Truth be told, this movie is not for everyone. Even horror fans may be put off. This movie is not for the Freddy, Jason, "Scream," or "The Grudge," type of horror movie fan. "High Tension," is of a sicker, more brutal mold. It is more akin to "Texas Chainsaw Masacre," or "Last House on the Left," although perhaps more gory and terrifying than either. (I know, "Texas Chainsaw" is famous for having very little actual blood, but everyone assuming there was a ton because of all the violent images and the movie was so terrifying and twisted; well "High Tension" is terrifying and twisted and DOES have a ton of blood.) <hl> The violence and gore are severe and off -putting, which is a shame because the movie is such an effective suspense thriller beyond these moments that people who are looking for nerve-frying suspense of a classic nature, but can't stomach the carnage will be missing out. <hl> I have seen some reviews here that make light of the violence; many saying the film is laughable and stupid because of it. I agree, it is over the top. In a movie like "Kill Bill" or "Evil Dead," for instance, a neck spewing blood after the head is severd gets a laugh because the tone of the film is satiracle. "High Tension" is not playing its violence for laughs. The senarios in which the violence is prestented here make it quite jarring. It is to the director's credit that "High Tension" so realistically creates an atmosphere of dread and desperateness (hence the 'tension'). There were a couple of times when I was pleasantly surprised to find what I thought I knew was going to happen didn't, or moments I thought were implausible or a leap of logic were explained away with later plot developments. The only thing I take issue with in this film is the big twist ending, which, looking at reviews here, seems to be what everyone is questioning. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it doesn't work. And it is also rather pointless. In a film this straight-forward about its scares and old fashioned in its execution, it is surprising it felt the need to slap on a gotcha! ending. It isn't a total abomination, though, and it hardly ruins all the suspence the movie provided for the previous 90 minutes. I do wish filmmakers would learn, though, somethings don't need to be explained. Some people are just crazy, sadistic and evil. And if there must be an explination it doesn't have to be the most surprising thing that the writer can think of. Often this means it is also the most outlandish and implausible thing he could think of as well. I still respect the ending on a small level though because at least it is trying to do something unique and clever. Even though it ultimately fails, it is more than I can say for most movies of this type and gets an A for effort. I watched this movie right after the insipid "House of Wax." That movie was pure drivel. An insulting waste of time that existed for no other reason than to cash in on a familiar title, the current crop of teen-slasher flicks and Paris Hilton. There was nothing new or good about any moment of it. Yet every few weekends Hollywood turns out a movie similar to it. For a fraction of "Wax's" budget, with a fraction of its set pieces and none of its recognizable names, "High Tension" has 100 times its suspense. With them both staring at you from the video shelves this Halloween, make sure you make the right choice. "High Tension" may not give you nightmares for weeks to come, and it may be too slight a fixture in the marketplace to ever be considered a true classic, but while it has you tied up and along for its disturbing, fast-paced ride, it will always keep your nerves frazzled.

While not a great film, and surely nothing groundbreakingly original, "High Tension" can least bost it is the first movie in a long while in which its title acurately depicts the film it is attached to. More suspenseful and disturbing than technically scary, "Constant Tension" might be the only better way to describe this efficient little thriller that gets going quick and never stops until its unfortunate head-scratcher of a conclusion. But the simple fact that it continues to move is more than you can say for most horror movies now-a-days (witness the hour it takes for anything to happen in the recent and dreadful remake of "House of Wax"), but the film's pleasures are far more than its pace alone.With no self-indulgent over-length, or grandiose attempts at unnecesary plot and character development, "High Tension" is smart enough to follow the less-is-more storytelling path and realize the best and biggest scares are the most primative. Hollywood, in all its bigger-is-better wisdom, never seems to learn that melting houses of wax and special effect spirits that attack from within the TV set will never be a substitute for, or as effectively frightning as, the idea that any of us can be brutally attacked at any moment, no matter what, if some one is fearless and dermined enough to do so. No, I would not want to meet-up with Freddy or Jason, but I think my chances of avoiding them, at least in this lifetime, are pretty safe. Some crazy guy breaking into my house and slaughtering my whole family, stalking the house, not leaving until he has made sure to horribly kill eveyone... That is not only possible, but terrifying as hell.Obviously it is not a pleasant scenario, but "High Tension" is far from a pleasant film. Truth be told, this movie is not for everyone. Even horror fans may be put off. This movie is not for the Freddy, Jason, "Scream," or "The Grudge," type of horror movie fan. "High Tension," is of a sicker, more brutal mold. It is more akin to "Texas Chainsaw Masacre," or "Last House on the Left," although perhaps more gory and terrifying than either. (I know, "Texas Chainsaw" is famous for having very little actual blood, but everyone assuming there was a ton because of all the violent images and the movie was so terrifying and twisted; well "High Tension" is terrifying and twisted and DOES have a ton of blood.) <hl> The violence and gore are severe and off <hl>-putting, which is a shame because the movie is such an effective suspense thriller beyond these moments that people who are looking for nerve-frying suspense of a classic nature, but can't stomach the carnage will be missing out.I have seen some reviews here that make light of the violence; many saying the film is laughable and stupid because of it. I agree, it is over the top. In a movie like "Kill Bill" or "Evil Dead," for instance, a neck spewing blood after the head is severd gets a laugh because the tone of the film is satiracle. "High Tension" is not playing its violence for laughs. The senarios in which the violence is prestented here make it quite jarring.It is to the director's credit that "High Tension" so realistically creates an atmosphere of dread and desperateness (hence the 'tension'). There were a couple of times when I was pleasantly surprised to find what I thought I knew was going to happen didn't, or moments I thought were implausible or a leap of logic were explained away with later plot developments.The only thing I take issue with in this film is the big twist ending, which, looking at reviews here, seems to be what everyone is questioning. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it doesn't work. And it is also rather pointless. In a film this straight-forward about its scares and old fashioned in its execution, it is surprising it felt the need to slap on a gotcha! ending. It isn't a total abomination, though, and it hardly ruins all the suspence the movie provided for the previous 90 minutes. I do wish filmmakers would learn, though, somethings don't need to be explained. Some people are just crazy, sadistic and evil. And if there must be an explination it doesn't have to be the most surprising thing that the writer can think of. Often this means it is also the most outlandish and implausible thing he could think of as well.I still respect the ending on a small level though because at least it is trying to do something unique and clever. Even though it ultimately fails, it is more than I can say for most movies of this type and gets an A for effort.I watched this movie right after the insipid "House of Wax." That movie was pure drivel. An insulting waste of time that existed for no other reason than to cash in on a familiar title, the current crop of teen-slasher flicks and Paris Hilton. There was nothing new or good about any moment of it. Yet every few weekends Hollywood turns out a movie similar to it. For a fraction of "Wax's" budget, with a fraction of its set pieces and none of its recognizable names, "High Tension" has 100 times its suspense. With them both staring at you from the video shelves this Halloween, make sure you make the right choice."High Tension" may not give you nightmares for weeks to come, and it may be too slight a fixture in the marketplace to ever be considered a true classic, but while it has you tied up and along for its disturbing, fast-paced ride, it will always keep your nerves frazzled.

<hl> The violence and gore are severe and off <hl> -putting, which is a shame because the movie is such an effective suspense thriller beyond these moments that people who are looking for nerve-frying suspense of a classic nature, but can't stomach the carnage will be missing out.


Question: How is the end?

This is a must see film, Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes are excellent in this and the film is very well written. My only complaint is the choppy camera work, it was disracting and made the movie seem cheap, perhaps they thought it would be artsy but I just thought it was annoying. A film of conviction and heart, powerful story's like this don't get made everyday.

Answer: excellent

<hl> This is a must see film, Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes are excellent in this and the film is very well written. <hl> My only complaint is the choppy camera work, it was disracting and made the movie seem cheap, perhaps they thought it would be artsy but I just thought it was annoying. A film of conviction and heart, powerful story's like this don't get made everyday.

This is a must see film, Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes are <hl> excellent <hl> in this and the film is very well written. My only complaint is the choppy camera work, it was disracting and made the movie seem cheap, perhaps they thought it would be artsy but I just thought it was annoying. A film of conviction and heart, powerful story's like this don't get made everyday.


Question: How is the quality of act?

Amazing record by Ron Howard - has managed to ruin every movie he's directed so far. Way to go! Can take a great, cool story, and load it with triteness and cliche-ridden cinematics, pacing, and story.I was quite excited to see this movie when I bought it - I knew it was about a famous mathematician, that it had won awards (or been nominated, anyway), and I like movies and plays about math and science. And lest you think I didn't like this because it was ron howard, I didn't know it was Ron Howard when I watched it.  After watching this and feeling that I had been taken for a ride, with every emotional response I'm supposed to have being telecasted to me through script and music (like a Spielberg movie but without the artistry), and being taken so far from reality, I and my friend who watched it together felt abused and misled."Who directed this thing?" I asked. "Ah - Ron Howard. That explains why this movie, which has a great and compelling human story underlying it and could have really been a greaet movie that people would watch over time, sucks."Though I give it two stars, let me give 5 stars to the cast - incredible acting, especially from Russel Crowe. Ed Harris great as always. Rest of the cast, brilliant. This movie has some tremendous acting. It's just too bad that Mr. Howard felt the need to manipulate us, tell us what to feel and think, and tug at the emotional heartstrings intentionally, instead of letting the story itself do that for us.The story of a person's life, told truthfully and accurately, without manipulation, is *far* more compelling than any fictional story we could think to invent, and certainly far more interesting than taking a person's story and adding in some fictional components to make it "sell" to the movie public. Sorry, but the movie public just ends up feeling abused. Nash's story could be told on grainy black and white film, with the same cast, but with no special effects, and audience would be riveted, because Nash's story *itself* is riveting.Please stop adding fiction to real-life stories; please stop manipulating the viewers, Mr. Howard.On the DVD itself: 3 or 4 stars for the DVD. Lots and lots of extras, but not of much interest. The transfer of the movie onto the DVD was done *beautifully*. This is an excellent transfer.This is one for renting, not owning.

Answer: the cast - incredible acting

Amazing record by Ron Howard - has managed to ruin every movie he's directed so far. Way to go! Can take a great, cool story, and load it with triteness and cliche-ridden cinematics, pacing, and story. I was quite excited to see this movie when I bought it - I knew it was about a famous mathematician, that it had won awards (or been nominated, anyway), and I like movies and plays about math and science. And lest you think I didn't like this because it was ron howard, I didn't know it was Ron Howard when I watched it. After watching this and feeling that I had been taken for a ride, with every emotional response I'm supposed to have being telecasted to me through script and music (like a Spielberg movie but without the artistry), and being taken so far from reality, I and my friend who watched it together felt abused and misled. "Who directed this thing?" I asked. "Ah - Ron Howard. That explains why this movie, which has a great and compelling human story underlying it and could have really been a greaet movie that people would watch over time, sucks. "Though <hl> I give it two stars, let me give 5 stars to the cast - incredible acting , especially from Russel Crowe. <hl> Ed Harris great as always. Rest of the cast, brilliant. This movie has some tremendous acting. It's just too bad that Mr. Howard felt the need to manipulate us, tell us what to feel and think, and tug at the emotional heartstrings intentionally, instead of letting the story itself do that for us. The story of a person's life, told truthfully and accurately, without manipulation, is *far* more compelling than any fictional story we could think to invent, and certainly far more interesting than taking a person's story and adding in some fictional components to make it "sell" to the movie public. Sorry, but the movie public just ends up feeling abused. Nash's story could be told on grainy black and white film, with the same cast, but with no special effects, and audience would be riveted, because Nash's story *itself* is riveting. Please stop adding fiction to real-life stories; please stop manipulating the viewers, Mr. Howard. On the DVD itself: 3 or 4 stars for the DVD. Lots and lots of extras, but not of much interest. The transfer of the movie onto the DVD was done *beautifully*. This is an excellent transfer. This is one for renting, not owning.

Amazing record by Ron Howard - has managed to ruin every movie he's directed so far. Way to go! Can take a great, cool story, and load it with triteness and cliche-ridden cinematics, pacing, and story.I was quite excited to see this movie when I bought it - I knew it was about a famous mathematician, that it had won awards (or been nominated, anyway), and I like movies and plays about math and science. And lest you think I didn't like this because it was ron howard, I didn't know it was Ron Howard when I watched it. After watching this and feeling that I had been taken for a ride, with every emotional response I'm supposed to have being telecasted to me through script and music (like a Spielberg movie but without the artistry), and being taken so far from reality, I and my friend who watched it together felt abused and misled."Who directed this thing?" I asked. "Ah - Ron Howard. That explains why this movie, which has a great and compelling human story underlying it and could have really been a greaet movie that people would watch over time, sucks."Though I give it two stars, let me give 5 stars to <hl> the cast - incredible acting <hl>, especially from Russel Crowe. Ed Harris great as always. Rest of the cast, brilliant. This movie has some tremendous acting. It's just too bad that Mr. Howard felt the need to manipulate us, tell us what to feel and think, and tug at the emotional heartstrings intentionally, instead of letting the story itself do that for us.The story of a person's life, told truthfully and accurately, without manipulation, is *far* more compelling than any fictional story we could think to invent, and certainly far more interesting than taking a person's story and adding in some fictional components to make it "sell" to the movie public. Sorry, but the movie public just ends up feeling abused. Nash's story could be told on grainy black and white film, with the same cast, but with no special effects, and audience would be riveted, because Nash's story *itself* is riveting.Please stop adding fiction to real-life stories; please stop manipulating the viewers, Mr. Howard.On the DVD itself: 3 or 4 stars for the DVD. Lots and lots of extras, but not of much interest. The transfer of the movie onto the DVD was done *beautifully*. This is an excellent transfer.This is one for renting, not owning.

I give it two stars, let me give 5 stars to <hl> the cast - incredible acting <hl> , especially from Russel Crowe.