Question: How is storyline?

"Signs" is the next thriller, offered by director/writer/producer, M. Night Shyamalan, who also made "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable".PLOT SUMMARY: "Signs" takes place in the rural farm area of Pennsylvania, where a retired Preacher lives with his two children and younger brother. Mel Gibson stars as Father Graham Hess, who has lost all Faith in God ever since his wife died in a terrible car accident. One day, Graham thinks his children, Morgan and Bo (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) are missing in the corn fields. He and his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), go out searching for them and discover the legendary Crop Circles in the field. At first, Graham and Merrill insist that it's nothing but teenagers playing jokes, but things start getting creepy when they watch TV and find out that Crop Circles are being found all across the Globe, according to the mysterious news that keeps on being repeated on every single radio station and television channel. When the family dogs start acting up, they are put outside and not much later, one of them dies. Other strange occurences that happen on the farm are that they keep on getting strange signals from Morgan's walkie talkie and someone--or something--has been tresspassing onto their land every night. Morgan keeps on insisting that it's "extra terrestrials" trying to make contact with Earth, but Graham won't believe it. However, when nothing else in Graham's theories seem to work, it all adds up to the fact that maybe--just MAYBE--Morgan might be right.MY OVERALL THOUGHTS: M. Night Shyamalan has taken the elements of religion, science, fiction, and even a little bit of horror, twisted them together, and turned them (along with top-notch acting performances, great special effects, and a superb storyline), into a spectacular and spooky film. Mel Gibson gives one of his best performances to-date, as the retired minster who's lack of self-belief in religion really nearly drives him to insanity with the Crop Circles. Joaquin Phoenix also gives a superb performance as Graham's younger brother who came to live with the family after Graham's wife died. Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin are amazing as the kids who believe what's really causing the Crop Circles to form are aliens trying to give Earth signals, as there are only a limited number of them and they are basically the same. The supporting cast does well, too...and M. Night Shyalaman even makes an appearence in the supporting cast, as he usually does in his films. The special effects are wonderful, and the storyline and plot are solid and strong--holds your interest to the very end. A real "thinker's film", and still manages to keep you entertained...and maybe even a little spooked.The DVD includes a nice package of extras including a six-part documentary on the making of the film, five deleted scenes, storyboards, and a featurette on Shyalaman's first alien film. The DVD is available in wide screen format.I highly recommend "Signs".Score:100/100A+

Answer: superb storyline

& quot;Signs&quot ; is the next thriller, offered by director/writer/producer, M. Night Shyamalan, who also made "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable".PLOT SUMMARY: "Signs" takes place in the rural farm area of Pennsylvania, where a retired Preacher lives with his two children and younger brother. Mel Gibson stars as Father Graham Hess, who has lost all Faith in God ever since his wife died in a terrible car accident. One day, Graham thinks his children, Morgan and Bo (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) are missing in the corn fields. He and his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), go out searching for them and discover the legendary Crop Circles in the field. At first, Graham and Merrill insist that it's nothing but teenagers playing jokes, but things start getting creepy when they watch TV and find out that Crop Circles are being found all across the Globe, according to the mysterious news that keeps on being repeated on every single radio station and television channel. When the family dogs start acting up, they are put outside and not much later, one of them dies. Other strange occurences that happen on the farm are that they keep on getting strange signals from Morgan's walkie talkie and someone--or something--has been tresspassing onto their land every night. Morgan keeps on insisting that it's "extra terrestrials" trying to make contact with Earth, but Graham won't believe it. However, when nothing else in Graham's theories seem to work, it all adds up to the fact that maybe--just MAYBE--Morgan might be right. MY OVERALL THOUGHTS: M. Night Shyamalan has taken the elements of religion, science, fiction, and even a little bit of horror, twisted them together, and turned them (along with top-notch acting performances, great special effects, and <hl> a superb storyline ), into a spectacular and spooky film. <hl> Mel Gibson gives one of his best performances to-date, as the retired minster who's lack of self-belief in religion really nearly drives him to insanity with the Crop Circles. Joaquin Phoenix also gives a superb performance as Graham's younger brother who came to live with the family after Graham's wife died. Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin are amazing as the kids who believe what's really causing the Crop Circles to form are aliens trying to give Earth signals, as there are only a limited number of them and they are basically the same. The supporting cast does well, too...and M. Night Shyalaman even makes an appearence in the supporting cast, as he usually does in his films. The special effects are wonderful, and the storyline and plot are solid and strong--holds your interest to the very end. A real "thinker's film", and still manages to keep you entertained...and maybe even a little spooked. The DVD includes a nice package of extras including a six-part documentary on the making of the film, five deleted scenes, storyboards, and a featurette on Shyalaman's first alien film. The DVD is available in wide screen format. I highly recommend "Signs".Score:100/100A+

"Signs" is the next thriller, offered by director/writer/producer, M. Night Shyamalan, who also made "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable".PLOT SUMMARY: "Signs" takes place in the rural farm area of Pennsylvania, where a retired Preacher lives with his two children and younger brother. Mel Gibson stars as Father Graham Hess, who has lost all Faith in God ever since his wife died in a terrible car accident. One day, Graham thinks his children, Morgan and Bo (Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) are missing in the corn fields. He and his brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), go out searching for them and discover the legendary Crop Circles in the field. At first, Graham and Merrill insist that it's nothing but teenagers playing jokes, but things start getting creepy when they watch TV and find out that Crop Circles are being found all across the Globe, according to the mysterious news that keeps on being repeated on every single radio station and television channel. When the family dogs start acting up, they are put outside and not much later, one of them dies. Other strange occurences that happen on the farm are that they keep on getting strange signals from Morgan's walkie talkie and someone--or something--has been tresspassing onto their land every night. Morgan keeps on insisting that it's "extra terrestrials" trying to make contact with Earth, but Graham won't believe it. However, when nothing else in Graham's theories seem to work, it all adds up to the fact that maybe--just MAYBE--Morgan might be right.MY OVERALL THOUGHTS: M. Night Shyamalan has taken the elements of religion, science, fiction, and even a little bit of horror, twisted them together, and turned them (along with top-notch acting performances, great special effects, and a <hl> superb storyline <hl>), into a spectacular and spooky film. Mel Gibson gives one of his best performances to-date, as the retired minster who's lack of self-belief in religion really nearly drives him to insanity with the Crop Circles. Joaquin Phoenix also gives a superb performance as Graham's younger brother who came to live with the family after Graham's wife died. Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin are amazing as the kids who believe what's really causing the Crop Circles to form are aliens trying to give Earth signals, as there are only a limited number of them and they are basically the same. The supporting cast does well, too...and M. Night Shyalaman even makes an appearence in the supporting cast, as he usually does in his films. The special effects are wonderful, and the storyline and plot are solid and strong--holds your interest to the very end. A real "thinker's film", and still manages to keep you entertained...and maybe even a little spooked.The DVD includes a nice package of extras including a six-part documentary on the making of the film, five deleted scenes, storyboards, and a featurette on Shyalaman's first alien film. The DVD is available in wide screen format.I highly recommend "Signs".Score:100/100A+

a <hl> superb storyline <hl> ), into a spectacular and spooky film.


Question: How good has this movie been until the end?

I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clichéd scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre.

Answer: excellent

I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual. Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack. That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down. The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer. When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic. Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting. Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson. I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time. As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clichéd scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense. The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been. Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie. <hl> Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. <hl> I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre.

I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clichéd scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with <hl> excellent <hl> performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre.


Question: How is the performance?

I had three reasons to wanting to see this movie, badly.3. Its a drama about depression. And I really needed a good, sad movie.2. I had read the book.1. Nicole Kidman starred.I loved the book, and because Nicole Kidman played Virginia Woolf, maybe I am a bit bias when I say, the movie is so much better. Which says a lot because the book is wonderful, groundbreaking. Could anything but win a Pulitzer prize? But the shockingly real performances of the three starlets was amazing. A movie that should have been boring, never lost its pace and always held your ineterest!BRAVO!

Answer: performances of the three starlets was amazing

I had three reasons to wanting to see this movie, badly.3. Its a drama about depression. And I really needed a good, sad movie.2. I had read the book.1. Nicole Kidman starred. I loved the book, and because Nicole Kidman played Virginia Woolf, maybe I am a bit bias when I say, the movie is so much better. Which says a lot because the book is wonderful, groundbreaking. Could anything but win a Pulitzer prize? <hl> But the shockingly real performances of the three starlets was amazing . <hl> A movie that should have been boring, never lost its pace and always held your ineterest!BRAVO!

I had three reasons to wanting to see this movie, badly.3. Its a drama about depression. And I really needed a good, sad movie.2. I had read the book.1. Nicole Kidman starred.I loved the book, and because Nicole Kidman played Virginia Woolf, maybe I am a bit bias when I say, the movie is so much better. Which says a lot because the book is wonderful, groundbreaking. Could anything but win a Pulitzer prize? But the shockingly real <hl> performances of the three starlets was amazing <hl>. A movie that should have been boring, never lost its pace and always held your ineterest!BRAVO!

But the shockingly real <hl> performances of the three starlets was amazing <hl> .


Question: Is the performance of the actor good in the movie?

I thought the movie had an interesting look and feel to it right from the beginning and it involved me right away. The acting of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman was absolutely amazing. They both gave powerful performances and looked sincere and genuine at every moment. I think the live singing made the film much better than most musicals and (hopefully) set a new standard.  I loved the quality and naturalness of the sound.I'm generally not a big fan of this sort of epic-level drama, but the actors pulled off the dramatic ending well, and I found it very moving. I think this movie, overall, is precedent setting and an artistic success.

Answer: the actors pulled off the dramatic ending well

I thought the movie had an interesting look and feel to it right from the beginning and it involved me right away. The acting of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman was absolutely amazing. They both gave powerful performances and looked sincere and genuine at every moment. I think the live singing made the film much better than most musicals and (hopefully) set a new standard. I loved the quality and naturalness of the sound. <hl> I'm generally not a big fan of this sort of epic-level drama, but the actors pulled off the dramatic ending well , and I found it very moving. <hl> I think this movie, overall, is precedent setting and an artistic success.

I thought the movie had an interesting look and feel to it right from the beginning and it involved me right away. The acting of Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman was absolutely amazing. They both gave powerful performances and looked sincere and genuine at every moment. I think the live singing made the film much better than most musicals and (hopefully) set a new standard. I loved the quality and naturalness of the sound.I'm generally not a big fan of this sort of epic-level drama, but <hl> the actors pulled off the dramatic ending well <hl>, and I found it very moving. I think this movie, overall, is precedent setting and an artistic success.

I'm generally not a big fan of this sort of epic-level drama, but <hl> the actors pulled off the dramatic ending well <hl> , and I found it very moving.


Question: How was the act?

X3: The Last stand is the Last Straw for Shawn James. The X- trilogy comes to a horrid finish under the lens of the inept Brett Ratner. Brett Ratner is to X-men what Joel Schumacher is to Batman. In ten years people will be denouncing this X-Trilogy the same way they do the first Batman Saga. Unfortunately, there won't be a Chris Nolan and David Goyer or a Sam Raimi around to rectify the mistake this time.Ratner makes a total 360 from what little story Bryan Singer tried to build in his first two films. The convoluted plot involves a "Cure" for mutation, the Pheonix, rising from the ashes, and a war. Each of these stories would make for a great movie in and of themselves, but Ratner throws them in a blender and makes one big mess. There are too many stories, too many characters and no focus. But Storm needs more screen time, the studio needs Halle, and Ratner just uses CGI special effects to patch up the plotholes and totally derive from the course of the comics being adapted. In the first ten minutes Ratner uses the Phoenix to Kill off Cyclops and Professor X, characters crucial to the X-Saga. I guess this is so Storm can be leader and have more screen time. Thank you Miss Halle Berry. Someone in your entourage should advise you this old Broadway adage: THERE ARE NO SMALL PARTS ONLY SMALL ACTORS. It's not how much screen time you have, but what you do with it. Sadly she gives the same flat uninspired performance she does in every movie post Swordfish.Due to Halle's insecure need for more screen time, Ratner's incompetent directing and Fox's need to beat WB's Superman Returns at the box office, X3 falls completely apart over the course of 90 odd minutes. Ironically, these three political forces behind the camera sabotage the intriguing political stories in the movie. The movie strays way off course from the comic storylines it's adapted from and heads into Batman and Robin territory. In the comics, Jean who loved Cyclops so much she held back the evil Phoenix force and sacrificed her own life, Kills the man she loves with impunity. Wolverine loved Jean so much he couldn't bear to kill her. But in this movie he slaughters her with ease. But this change of story course from the comics is nothing compared to the numerous strays from the original two movies. Rogue who struggles and deals with her inability to touch others by finding another way to connect with them (emotionally), just cops out with a wonder drug. Iceman just decides to date Kitty Pryde because it's convenient to the plot. During the big battle sequence, Magneto abandons a cured Mystique, his loyal lieutenant of two movies. Six X-men take on an army of morlocks so storm can get her big battle sequence. And Magneto, the brilliant military strategist doesn't have enough sense to throw a force field around himself while Six X-men are shooting "cure" darts allover the place. Hey, he always keeps a magnetic force field around him in the comics, but in this movie he just decides not to. And when the war is all done, thousands of lives lost, billions in property damage, both sides shake hands and back to business as usual with a Don't ask, Don't tell policy. But these plot points don't matter. It's a necessary compromise so Storm gets more screen time.When you think about this movie it truly is the "Wolverine and Storm" of the X-Franchise a complete and unmitigated disaster. The entire movie feels rushed and sloppy; it seems like Fox just wanted to get a product out before Superman Returned; quality be damned. The acting is flat and one-dimensional because characters aren't' written with any depth. To cover up the bad acting and bad writing, Ratner overloads the movie with special effects. Yes, the special effects are dazzling; seeing the Golden Gate Bridge torn apart is amazing. But there's no story behind them and no build up to that big final sequence to make us care. Thanks to the political forces behind the camera, The X franchise has a forgettable ending and will be a footnote in superhero movie history like the first Batman Franchise.Skip this movie and look for the two episodes of the old X-Men cartoon: Apocalypse Rising and Come the Apocalypse. They actually tell this same story better in one hour than this confusing movie does in 90 minutes.

Answer: The acting is flat and one-dimensional

X3: The Last stand is the Last Straw for Shawn James. The X- trilogy comes to a horrid finish under the lens of the inept Brett Ratner. Brett Ratner is to X-men what Joel Schumacher is to Batman. In ten years people will be denouncing this X-Trilogy the same way they do the first Batman Saga. Unfortunately, there won't be a Chris Nolan and David Goyer or a Sam Raimi around to rectify the mistake this time. Ratner makes a total 360 from what little story Bryan Singer tried to build in his first two films. The convoluted plot involves a "Cure" for mutation, the Pheonix, rising from the ashes, and a war. Each of these stories would make for a great movie in and of themselves, but Ratner throws them in a blender and makes one big mess. There are too many stories, too many characters and no focus. But Storm needs more screen time, the studio needs Halle, and Ratner just uses CGI special effects to patch up the plotholes and totally derive from the course of the comics being adapted. In the first ten minutes Ratner uses the Phoenix to Kill off Cyclops and Professor X, characters crucial to the X-Saga. I guess this is so Storm can be leader and have more screen time. Thank you Miss Halle Berry. Someone in your entourage should advise you this old Broadway adage: THERE ARE NO SMALL PARTS ONLY SMALL ACTORS. It's not how much screen time you have, but what you do with it. Sadly she gives the same flat uninspired performance she does in every movie post Swordfish. Due to Halle's insecure need for more screen time, Ratner's incompetent directing and Fox's need to beat WB's Superman Returns at the box office, X3 falls completely apart over the course of 90 odd minutes. Ironically, these three political forces behind the camera sabotage the intriguing political stories in the movie. The movie strays way off course from the comic storylines it's adapted from and heads into Batman and Robin territory. In the comics, Jean who loved Cyclops so much she held back the evil Phoenix force and sacrificed her own life, Kills the man she loves with impunity. Wolverine loved Jean so much he couldn't bear to kill her. But in this movie he slaughters her with ease. But this change of story course from the comics is nothing compared to the numerous strays from the original two movies. Rogue who struggles and deals with her inability to touch others by finding another way to connect with them (emotionally), just cops out with a wonder drug. Iceman just decides to date Kitty Pryde because it's convenient to the plot. During the big battle sequence, Magneto abandons a cured Mystique, his loyal lieutenant of two movies. Six X-men take on an army of morlocks so storm can get her big battle sequence. And Magneto, the brilliant military strategist doesn't have enough sense to throw a force field around himself while Six X-men are shooting "cure" darts allover the place. Hey, he always keeps a magnetic force field around him in the comics, but in this movie he just decides not to. And when the war is all done, thousands of lives lost, billions in property damage, both sides shake hands and back to business as usual with a Don't ask, Don't tell policy. But these plot points don't matter. It's a necessary compromise so Storm gets more screen time. When you think about this movie it truly is the "Wolverine and Storm" of the X-Franchise a complete and unmitigated disaster. The entire movie feels rushed and sloppy; it seems like Fox just wanted to get a product out before Superman Returned; quality be damned. <hl> The acting is flat and one-dimensional because characters aren't' written with any depth. <hl> To cover up the bad acting and bad writing, Ratner overloads the movie with special effects. Yes, the special effects are dazzling; seeing the Golden Gate Bridge torn apart is amazing. But there's no story behind them and no build up to that big final sequence to make us care. Thanks to the political forces behind the camera, The X franchise has a forgettable ending and will be a footnote in superhero movie history like the first Batman Franchise. Skip this movie and look for the two episodes of the old X-Men cartoon: Apocalypse Rising and Come the Apocalypse. They actually tell this same story better in one hour than this confusing movie does in 90 minutes.

X3: The Last stand is the Last Straw for Shawn James. The X- trilogy comes to a horrid finish under the lens of the inept Brett Ratner. Brett Ratner is to X-men what Joel Schumacher is to Batman. In ten years people will be denouncing this X-Trilogy the same way they do the first Batman Saga. Unfortunately, there won't be a Chris Nolan and David Goyer or a Sam Raimi around to rectify the mistake this time.Ratner makes a total 360 from what little story Bryan Singer tried to build in his first two films. The convoluted plot involves a "Cure" for mutation, the Pheonix, rising from the ashes, and a war. Each of these stories would make for a great movie in and of themselves, but Ratner throws them in a blender and makes one big mess. There are too many stories, too many characters and no focus. But Storm needs more screen time, the studio needs Halle, and Ratner just uses CGI special effects to patch up the plotholes and totally derive from the course of the comics being adapted. In the first ten minutes Ratner uses the Phoenix to Kill off Cyclops and Professor X, characters crucial to the X-Saga. I guess this is so Storm can be leader and have more screen time. Thank you Miss Halle Berry. Someone in your entourage should advise you this old Broadway adage: THERE ARE NO SMALL PARTS ONLY SMALL ACTORS. It's not how much screen time you have, but what you do with it. Sadly she gives the same flat uninspired performance she does in every movie post Swordfish.Due to Halle's insecure need for more screen time, Ratner's incompetent directing and Fox's need to beat WB's Superman Returns at the box office, X3 falls completely apart over the course of 90 odd minutes. Ironically, these three political forces behind the camera sabotage the intriguing political stories in the movie. The movie strays way off course from the comic storylines it's adapted from and heads into Batman and Robin territory. In the comics, Jean who loved Cyclops so much she held back the evil Phoenix force and sacrificed her own life, Kills the man she loves with impunity. Wolverine loved Jean so much he couldn't bear to kill her. But in this movie he slaughters her with ease. But this change of story course from the comics is nothing compared to the numerous strays from the original two movies. Rogue who struggles and deals with her inability to touch others by finding another way to connect with them (emotionally), just cops out with a wonder drug. Iceman just decides to date Kitty Pryde because it's convenient to the plot. During the big battle sequence, Magneto abandons a cured Mystique, his loyal lieutenant of two movies. Six X-men take on an army of morlocks so storm can get her big battle sequence. And Magneto, the brilliant military strategist doesn't have enough sense to throw a force field around himself while Six X-men are shooting "cure" darts allover the place. Hey, he always keeps a magnetic force field around him in the comics, but in this movie he just decides not to. And when the war is all done, thousands of lives lost, billions in property damage, both sides shake hands and back to business as usual with a Don't ask, Don't tell policy. But these plot points don't matter. It's a necessary compromise so Storm gets more screen time.When you think about this movie it truly is the "Wolverine and Storm" of the X-Franchise a complete and unmitigated disaster. The entire movie feels rushed and sloppy; it seems like Fox just wanted to get a product out before Superman Returned; quality be damned. <hl> The acting is flat and one-dimensional <hl> because characters aren't' written with any depth. To cover up the bad acting and bad writing, Ratner overloads the movie with special effects. Yes, the special effects are dazzling; seeing the Golden Gate Bridge torn apart is amazing. But there's no story behind them and no build up to that big final sequence to make us care. Thanks to the political forces behind the camera, The X franchise has a forgettable ending and will be a footnote in superhero movie history like the first Batman Franchise.Skip this movie and look for the two episodes of the old X-Men cartoon: Apocalypse Rising and Come the Apocalypse. They actually tell this same story better in one hour than this confusing movie does in 90 minutes.


Question: How is the visual quality of the video?

The "Phantom Menace" discusses the beginnings of the Star Wars universe and their problem with evil droids trying to take over the Republic.The special effects are excellent as is the underwater adventure.The droids are enemies of the Republic, who want to change it and take it over; thereby, enslaving its inhabitants.I rate this movie only 4 stars because the plot is somewhat lackluster, and the movie isn't long enough.However, on a positive note, while the plot is relatively simplistic and short, the special effects and the characters are both memorable and excellent.Bottom-line: The actors did a great job acting, but the movie needed a more complex plot and needed to be longer. Instead, it's rather short and leaves you wanting more excitement and adventure.*Highly recommended for anyone over 13 due to violence.

Answer: The special effects are excellent as is the underwater adventure

The "Phantom Menace" discusses the beginnings of the Star Wars universe and their problem with evil droids trying to take over the Republic. <hl> The special effects are excellent as is the underwater adventure .The droids are enemies of the Republic, who want to change it and take it over; thereby, enslaving its inhabitants. <hl> I rate this movie only 4 stars because the plot is somewhat lackluster, and the movie isn't long enough. However, on a positive note, while the plot is relatively simplistic and short, the special effects and the characters are both memorable and excellent. Bottom-line: The actors did a great job acting, but the movie needed a more complex plot and needed to be longer. Instead, it's rather short and leaves you wanting more excitement and adventure.*Highly recommended for anyone over 13 due to violence.

The "Phantom Menace" discusses the beginnings of the Star Wars universe and their problem with evil droids trying to take over the Republic.<hl> The special effects are excellent as is the underwater adventure <hl>.The droids are enemies of the Republic, who want to change it and take it over; thereby, enslaving its inhabitants.I rate this movie only 4 stars because the plot is somewhat lackluster, and the movie isn't long enough.However, on a positive note, while the plot is relatively simplistic and short, the special effects and the characters are both memorable and excellent.Bottom-line: The actors did a great job acting, but the movie needed a more complex plot and needed to be longer. Instead, it's rather short and leaves you wanting more excitement and adventure.*Highly recommended for anyone over 13 due to violence.

<hl> The special effects are excellent as is the underwater adventure <hl> .The droids are enemies of the Republic, who want to change it and take it over; thereby, enslaving its inhabitants.


Question: Is the direction of the movie fantastic?

First off, amazing, the film is just flawless.  The acting on all parts was a joy to watch.  I feel Paul Bettany was overlooked at the oscars, as was Russell Crowe who deserved that oscar a million times over.  His performance was moving and emotional, a flawless piece of art.  Jennifer Connelly well deserved her oscar.  She was stunning as usual and she was well matched with Russell since the two of them steal every scene they embody.  This is just a great film, period.  The film revolves around the true life story of John Nash, a famous mathmatician who suffered from scizophrenia.  The movie starts while John is in college searching for his origional idea.  He finds it, and ends up working as a teacher/informant kinda sorta for the government, making frequent trips to the pentagon.  He meets and falls in love with a student (Connoly) and they are married and soon she is pregnant.  That's when things get hard.  Nash gets a little paranoid beliveing the Russians are trying to kill him.  Soon he is in the hospital undergoing some primative electric-type therapy to cure him of his mental state.  The balance of the movie shows Nash's road to redemption and that road is long, hard and bumpy, but worth the ride.  Crowe's dedication to his roles is evident in the enjoyment you recieve from watching him on the screen.  Keep it up Russ.  This film ends on a happy note, a note actually so happy and heartwarming it may bring you to tears or at least give you the motivation to get up and clap.  If you want to see a film that will make you think, make you cry and make you smile then this is the film you should see.

Answer: His performance was moving and emotional

First off, amazing, the film is just flawless. The acting on all parts was a joy to watch. I feel Paul Bettany was overlooked at the oscars, as was Russell Crowe who deserved that oscar a million times over. <hl> His performance was moving and emotional , a flawless piece of art. <hl> Jennifer Connelly well deserved her oscar. She was stunning as usual and she was well matched with Russell since the two of them steal every scene they embody. This is just a great film, period. The film revolves around the true life story of John Nash, a famous mathmatician who suffered from scizophrenia. The movie starts while John is in college searching for his origional idea. He finds it, and ends up working as a teacher/informant kinda sorta for the government, making frequent trips to the pentagon. He meets and falls in love with a student (Connoly) and they are married and soon she is pregnant. That's when things get hard. Nash gets a little paranoid beliveing the Russians are trying to kill him. Soon he is in the hospital undergoing some primative electric-type therapy to cure him of his mental state. The balance of the movie shows Nash's road to redemption and that road is long, hard and bumpy, but worth the ride. Crowe's dedication to his roles is evident in the enjoyment you recieve from watching him on the screen. Keep it up Russ. This film ends on a happy note, a note actually so happy and heartwarming it may bring you to tears or at least give you the motivation to get up and clap. If you want to see a film that will make you think, make you cry and make you smile then this is the film you should see.

First off, amazing, the film is just flawless. The acting on all parts was a joy to watch. I feel Paul Bettany was overlooked at the oscars, as was Russell Crowe who deserved that oscar a million times over. <hl> His performance was moving and emotional <hl>, a flawless piece of art. Jennifer Connelly well deserved her oscar. She was stunning as usual and she was well matched with Russell since the two of them steal every scene they embody. This is just a great film, period. The film revolves around the true life story of John Nash, a famous mathmatician who suffered from scizophrenia. The movie starts while John is in college searching for his origional idea. He finds it, and ends up working as a teacher/informant kinda sorta for the government, making frequent trips to the pentagon. He meets and falls in love with a student (Connoly) and they are married and soon she is pregnant. That's when things get hard. Nash gets a little paranoid beliveing the Russians are trying to kill him. Soon he is in the hospital undergoing some primative electric-type therapy to cure him of his mental state. The balance of the movie shows Nash's road to redemption and that road is long, hard and bumpy, but worth the ride. Crowe's dedication to his roles is evident in the enjoyment you recieve from watching him on the screen. Keep it up Russ. This film ends on a happy note, a note actually so happy and heartwarming it may bring you to tears or at least give you the motivation to get up and clap. If you want to see a film that will make you think, make you cry and make you smile then this is the film you should see.

<hl> His performance was moving and emotional <hl> , a flawless piece of art.


Question: What was an impeccable act?

All I can say, it was fantastic.  The acting was terrific and it is very emotional.  This film really makes you think about how people perceive others, and makes you think about your own feelings as well.

Answer: it was fantastic

All I can say, it was fantastic .

<hl> All I can say, it was fantastic . <hl> The acting was terrific and it is very emotional. This film really makes you think about how people perceive others, and makes you think about your own feelings as well.

All I can say, <hl> it was fantastic <hl>. The acting was terrific and it is very emotional. This film really makes you think about how people perceive others, and makes you think about your own feelings as well.

All I can say, <hl> it was fantastic <hl> .


Question: How does your father feel?

Guillermo del Toro knew there is a huge audience for movies that emphasize flash-bang wizardry over substance. He knew he was making a fantasy film with fauns and fairies and secret underground kingdoms, featuring a twelve year old girl as the central character. He knew lots of Americans hate reading so much they wouldn't think about going to a film with subtitles, even though he directed the well-made English language "Hellboy". He knew the amount and intensity of the violence of this film would make it unsuitable for children. Yet he made the film anyway - and thank goodness he did.I see many reviews here complaining that this absolute fantastic movie is "boring" and they had to "read for two hours". Oh my! Pity the poor audience, forced against their will to, dare I say it? Read. So - if you aren't a Spanish speaker and don't want to "read" for two hours, keep on moving.In fact - if you don't want to see a movie filled with thrilling adventure, stunning visuals, evil fascist villains, brave female heroines and beautiful photography with sharp editing - stay far, far away.You still there? Maybe El Laberinto del Fauno is for you. I join the large number of positive reviewers standing in line to sing this film's praises. Yes, Ivana Baquero is an amazing child actor. Not yet a teenager, she reminds me of the sixteen year old Jennifer Connelly in "Labyrinth" twenty years ago. The resemblance of the two young actresses and the name "Labyrinth" aren't the only similarities. Both films are fantasies featuring young women who must complete a "quest" to save their baby brother. But the newer film is superior in every way, for the appropriate audience. Where Labyrinth featured Connelly interacting with David Bowie and an army of Muppets, El Laberinto has young Ivana moving back and forth between an underworld of fairies and fauns and her "real world" of Spanish Fascists. The real world elements of the story make you care very deeply about what happens to young Ofelia and her mother and baby brother.Ofelia's father has been killed in the Spanish Civil War and her desperate mother marries the cruel Vidal, played by Sergi López, one of Franco's captains, who (as has been written repeatedly) joins the screen's pre-eminent villains. He is cold and cruel to his own family and soldiers. To his enemies, he is far worse. Maribel Verdú, previously wonderful in "Y Tu Mama Tambien", is strong and compassionate as Mercedes, a servant of the cruel Vidal, but also the sister of one of the Republican Spanish freedom fighters the Captain has been dispatched to snuff out. Ariadna Gil is tragically noble as Ofelia's mother, Carmen. She has married to provide for her family but, realistically, she would like for things to "work out" between the Captain and the rest of the family. Gil's work here reminds me of Allison Janney's in "American Beauty" as a wife beaten down by life with a domineering military man. Álex Angulo reminds me of a Spanish Paul Giamatti as a kind Doctor who has been conscripted onto the evil Captain's staff, but like Mercedes, is secretly helping the freedom fighters with his life continuously at risk. Doug Jones gives two of the most memorable performances in the film under heavy makeup as the titular Faun Pan and as the horrible "Pale Man" a flesh-eating beast that Ofelia must retrieve a magic dagger from.My only regret watching this film is my own limitation at not understanding Espanol. I would imagine that this fantastically rich film is even more delicious in its native language.

Answer: Ofelia's father has been killed in the Spanish Civil

Guillermo del Toro knew there is a huge audience for movies that emphasize flash-bang wizardry over substance. He knew he was making a fantasy film with fauns and fairies and secret underground kingdoms, featuring a twelve year old girl as the central character. He knew lots of Americans hate reading so much they wouldn't think about going to a film with subtitles, even though he directed the well-made English language "Hellboy". He knew the amount and intensity of the violence of this film would make it unsuitable for children. Yet he made the film anyway - and thank goodness he did. I see many reviews here complaining that this absolute fantastic movie is "boring" and they had to "read for two hours". Oh my! Pity the poor audience, forced against their will to, dare I say it? Read. So - if you aren't a Spanish speaker and don't want to "read" for two hours, keep on moving. In fact - if you don't want to see a movie filled with thrilling adventure, stunning visuals, evil fascist villains, brave female heroines and beautiful photography with sharp editing - stay far, far away. You still there? Maybe El Laberinto del Fauno is for you. I join the large number of positive reviewers standing in line to sing this film's praises. Yes, Ivana Baquero is an amazing child actor. Not yet a teenager, she reminds me of the sixteen year old Jennifer Connelly in "Labyrinth" twenty years ago. The resemblance of the two young actresses and the name "Labyrinth" aren't the only similarities. Both films are fantasies featuring young women who must complete a "quest" to save their baby brother. But the newer film is superior in every way, for the appropriate audience. Where Labyrinth featured Connelly interacting with David Bowie and an army of Muppets, El Laberinto has young Ivana moving back and forth between an underworld of fairies and fauns and her "real world" of Spanish Fascists. The real world elements of the story make you care very deeply about what happens to young Ofelia and her mother and baby brother. <hl> Ofelia's father has been killed in the Spanish Civil War and her desperate mother marries the cruel Vidal, played by Sergi López, one of Franco's captains, who (as has been written repeatedly) joins the screen's pre-eminent villains. <hl> He is cold and cruel to his own family and soldiers. To his enemies, he is far worse. Maribel Verdú, previously wonderful in "Y Tu Mama Tambien", is strong and compassionate as Mercedes, a servant of the cruel Vidal, but also the sister of one of the Republican Spanish freedom fighters the Captain has been dispatched to snuff out. Ariadna Gil is tragically noble as Ofelia's mother, Carmen. She has married to provide for her family but, realistically, she would like for things to "work out" between the Captain and the rest of the family. Gil's work here reminds me of Allison Janney's in "American Beauty" as a wife beaten down by life with a domineering military man. Álex Angulo reminds me of a Spanish Paul Giamatti as a kind Doctor who has been conscripted onto the evil Captain's staff, but like Mercedes, is secretly helping the freedom fighters with his life continuously at risk. Doug Jones gives two of the most memorable performances in the film under heavy makeup as the titular Faun Pan and as the horrible "Pale Man" a flesh-eating beast that Ofelia must retrieve a magic dagger from. My only regret watching this film is my own limitation at not understanding Espanol. I would imagine that this fantastically rich film is even more delicious in its native language.

Guillermo del Toro knew there is a huge audience for movies that emphasize flash-bang wizardry over substance. He knew he was making a fantasy film with fauns and fairies and secret underground kingdoms, featuring a twelve year old girl as the central character. He knew lots of Americans hate reading so much they wouldn't think about going to a film with subtitles, even though he directed the well-made English language "Hellboy". He knew the amount and intensity of the violence of this film would make it unsuitable for children. Yet he made the film anyway - and thank goodness he did.I see many reviews here complaining that this absolute fantastic movie is "boring" and they had to "read for two hours". Oh my! Pity the poor audience, forced against their will to, dare I say it? Read. So - if you aren't a Spanish speaker and don't want to "read" for two hours, keep on moving.In fact - if you don't want to see a movie filled with thrilling adventure, stunning visuals, evil fascist villains, brave female heroines and beautiful photography with sharp editing - stay far, far away.You still there? Maybe El Laberinto del Fauno is for you. I join the large number of positive reviewers standing in line to sing this film's praises. Yes, Ivana Baquero is an amazing child actor. Not yet a teenager, she reminds me of the sixteen year old Jennifer Connelly in "Labyrinth" twenty years ago. The resemblance of the two young actresses and the name "Labyrinth" aren't the only similarities. Both films are fantasies featuring young women who must complete a "quest" to save their baby brother. But the newer film is superior in every way, for the appropriate audience. Where Labyrinth featured Connelly interacting with David Bowie and an army of Muppets, El Laberinto has young Ivana moving back and forth between an underworld of fairies and fauns and her "real world" of Spanish Fascists. The real world elements of the story make you care very deeply about what happens to young Ofelia and her mother and baby brother.<hl> Ofelia's father has been killed in the Spanish Civil <hl> War and her desperate mother marries the cruel Vidal, played by Sergi López, one of Franco's captains, who (as has been written repeatedly) joins the screen's pre-eminent villains. He is cold and cruel to his own family and soldiers. To his enemies, he is far worse. Maribel Verdú, previously wonderful in "Y Tu Mama Tambien", is strong and compassionate as Mercedes, a servant of the cruel Vidal, but also the sister of one of the Republican Spanish freedom fighters the Captain has been dispatched to snuff out. Ariadna Gil is tragically noble as Ofelia's mother, Carmen. She has married to provide for her family but, realistically, she would like for things to "work out" between the Captain and the rest of the family. Gil's work here reminds me of Allison Janney's in "American Beauty" as a wife beaten down by life with a domineering military man. Álex Angulo reminds me of a Spanish Paul Giamatti as a kind Doctor who has been conscripted onto the evil Captain's staff, but like Mercedes, is secretly helping the freedom fighters with his life continuously at risk. Doug Jones gives two of the most memorable performances in the film under heavy makeup as the titular Faun Pan and as the horrible "Pale Man" a flesh-eating beast that Ofelia must retrieve a magic dagger from.My only regret watching this film is my own limitation at not understanding Espanol. I would imagine that this fantastically rich film is even more delicious in its native language.


Question: How was the action scene?

I really wanted to see this in theatres and never got the chance, so I finally have seen the movie and am not sure what to think.  I was expecting something that was maybe a little Romeo & Juliet with the Vampire vs. Werewolf thing going on, but I don't know.  This movie really didn't pay any homage to old Vampire/Werewolf mythology, it didn't really have much action, and the Romeo & Juliet thing is not really expressed and there's only one kiss between the two main people.  Kate Beckinsale is alright as the main Vampire, but Scott Speedman (you may have seen him in Dark Blue, an excellent movie) really doesn't have much to add to the film, and was sort of a waste.  I thought the Vampire Werewolf hypbrid would be kind of cool, but the transformation was alot cooler than the end result which looked like a guy painted gray with sharp teeth and claws, very creative.  The end result of this movie was a boring anticlimactic piece that is something like The Matrix was, starting its own trilogy, which is what I think they're doing.  It really has nothing new to offer now that Blade has shown us another view of Vampires, and it sure as heck isn't funny.  I can't really say you won't like it, but I can't say you will either.

Answer: it didn't really have much action

I really wanted to see this in theatres and never got the chance, so I finally have seen the movie and am not sure what to think. I was expecting something that was maybe a little Romeo & Juliet with the Vampire vs. Werewolf thing going on, but I don't know. <hl> This movie really didn't pay any homage to old Vampire/Werewolf mythology, it didn't really have much action , and the Romeo & Juliet thing is not really expressed and there's only one kiss between the two main people. <hl> Kate Beckinsale is alright as the main Vampire, but Scott Speedman (you may have seen him in Dark Blue, an excellent movie) really doesn't have much to add to the film, and was sort of a waste. I thought the Vampire Werewolf hypbrid would be kind of cool, but the transformation was alot cooler than the end result which looked like a guy painted gray with sharp teeth and claws, very creative. The end result of this movie was a boring anticlimactic piece that is something like The Matrix was, starting its own trilogy, which is what I think they're doing. It really has nothing new to offer now that Blade has shown us another view of Vampires, and it sure as heck isn't funny. I can't really say you won't like it, but I can't say you will either.

I really wanted to see this in theatres and never got the chance, so I finally have seen the movie and am not sure what to think. I was expecting something that was maybe a little Romeo & Juliet with the Vampire vs. Werewolf thing going on, but I don't know. This movie really didn't pay any homage to old Vampire/Werewolf mythology, <hl> it didn't really have much action <hl>, and the Romeo & Juliet thing is not really expressed and there's only one kiss between the two main people. Kate Beckinsale is alright as the main Vampire, but Scott Speedman (you may have seen him in Dark Blue, an excellent movie) really doesn't have much to add to the film, and was sort of a waste. I thought the Vampire Werewolf hypbrid would be kind of cool, but the transformation was alot cooler than the end result which looked like a guy painted gray with sharp teeth and claws, very creative. The end result of this movie was a boring anticlimactic piece that is something like The Matrix was, starting its own trilogy, which is what I think they're doing. It really has nothing new to offer now that Blade has shown us another view of Vampires, and it sure as heck isn't funny. I can't really say you won't like it, but I can't say you will either.

This movie really didn't pay any homage to old Vampire/Werewolf mythology, <hl> it didn't really have much action <hl> , and the Romeo & Juliet thing is not really expressed and there's only one kiss between the two main people.


Question: How realistic is the acting?

First,hats off to the director for using various camera tricks and techniques in engaging the viewer. It took me a few minutes to realize why the camera lens was in a severe state of vertigo the first 15 minutes into the film. Thank goodness however the entire movie was not filmed using this technique ! Probably would have passed out. The reason for the swirling and sickening motion of the lens and the droning of the high tech synth sound of the soundtrack in the beginning is to capture  the madness of the moment of how one man and his friend are seeking vengeance for a heinous crime (rape) committed against his girlfriend. It also transports you into his head.The entire story is told in a backwards sort of chronological order leading to previous possible events and circumstances that led to Monica Belucci's character becoming a rape victim. The rape scene is one of the most graphic I have seen in any film in my entire life ! You will begin to actually wonder if the scene indeed was real or not. The rape scene alone is one that can haunt the viewer for time to come. Other violent acts are just as equally shocking and extremely believable due to excellent makeup, special effects, and possible cg effects. There is frontal nudity of both male and female actors that may offend some viewers (this is definitely not for children, either)!The biggest mind trick played on the audience is how the movie progresses in real viewing time, yet, you must keep in mind that the story is unfolding backwards. Hence leading to the beginning and not the end. As we follow Belluci's character and the others one soon almost forgets the first 15 shocking minutes of the film, including the underpass rape scene, and start to think that there is a happy ending. There is NO happy ending (nor beginning for that matter)...I went out on a limb to see this one, particularly since Roeper and Ebert raved about it. Well, in all honesty, it is a very brutal movie to sit through the first time and it is definitely not one I will be seeing again. Due to the filming and stroytelling techniques and all too realistic effects it does merit some attention but only by viewers who can stomach it !...

Answer: the entire movie was not filmed using this technique

First,hats off to the director for using various camera tricks and techniques in engaging the viewer. It took me a few minutes to realize why the camera lens was in a severe state of vertigo the first 15 minutes into the film. <hl> Thank goodness however the entire movie was not filmed using this technique ! <hl> Probably would have passed out. The reason for the swirling and sickening motion of the lens and the droning of the high tech synth sound of the soundtrack in the beginning is to capture the madness of the moment of how one man and his friend are seeking vengeance for a heinous crime (rape) committed against his girlfriend. It also transports you into his head. The entire story is told in a backwards sort of chronological order leading to previous possible events and circumstances that led to Monica Belucci's character becoming a rape victim. The rape scene is one of the most graphic I have seen in any film in my entire life ! You will begin to actually wonder if the scene indeed was real or not. The rape scene alone is one that can haunt the viewer for time to come. Other violent acts are just as equally shocking and extremely believable due to excellent makeup, special effects, and possible cg effects. There is frontal nudity of both male and female actors that may offend some viewers (this is definitely not for children, either)!The biggest mind trick played on the audience is how the movie progresses in real viewing time, yet, you must keep in mind that the story is unfolding backwards. Hence leading to the beginning and not the end. As we follow Belluci's character and the others one soon almost forgets the first 15 shocking minutes of the film, including the underpass rape scene, and start to think that there is a happy ending. There is NO happy ending (nor beginning for that matter)... I went out on a limb to see this one, particularly since Roeper and Ebert raved about it. Well, in all honesty, it is a very brutal movie to sit through the first time and it is definitely not one I will be seeing again. Due to the filming and stroytelling techniques and all too realistic effects it does merit some attention but only by viewers who can stomach it !...

First,hats off to the director for using various camera tricks and techniques in engaging the viewer. It took me a few minutes to realize why the camera lens was in a severe state of vertigo the first 15 minutes into the film. Thank goodness however <hl> the entire movie was not filmed using this technique <hl> ! Probably would have passed out. The reason for the swirling and sickening motion of the lens and the droning of the high tech synth sound of the soundtrack in the beginning is to capture the madness of the moment of how one man and his friend are seeking vengeance for a heinous crime (rape) committed against his girlfriend. It also transports you into his head.The entire story is told in a backwards sort of chronological order leading to previous possible events and circumstances that led to Monica Belucci's character becoming a rape victim. The rape scene is one of the most graphic I have seen in any film in my entire life ! You will begin to actually wonder if the scene indeed was real or not. The rape scene alone is one that can haunt the viewer for time to come. Other violent acts are just as equally shocking and extremely believable due to excellent makeup, special effects, and possible cg effects. There is frontal nudity of both male and female actors that may offend some viewers (this is definitely not for children, either)!The biggest mind trick played on the audience is how the movie progresses in real viewing time, yet, you must keep in mind that the story is unfolding backwards. Hence leading to the beginning and not the end. As we follow Belluci's character and the others one soon almost forgets the first 15 shocking minutes of the film, including the underpass rape scene, and start to think that there is a happy ending. There is NO happy ending (nor beginning for that matter)...I went out on a limb to see this one, particularly since Roeper and Ebert raved about it. Well, in all honesty, it is a very brutal movie to sit through the first time and it is definitely not one I will be seeing again. Due to the filming and stroytelling techniques and all too realistic effects it does merit some attention but only by viewers who can stomach it !...


Question: How is the quality of sound?

If I were asked to list the top scary movies of all time, I would place John Carpenter's Halloween at the top of my list.  It is much scarier than Psycho and The Exorcist, in my opinion, and the likes of Jason and Freddy pale in comparison to Michael Myers.  Its influence on the genre can hardly be overstated; countless slasher films have been released over the last two decades plus, wherein each filmmaker consciously or unconsciously has tried to duplicate the force and power of this 1978 masterpiece of terror and suspense.  It is this movie's genre-defining influence that earns it first place in my rankings.Is the movie scary?  Yes, emphatically so.  All these years later, with audiences having a number of other slasher films under their belt, Halloween may not seem as frightening as it had to have been when it was released, but it is deliciously scary nonetheless.  The groundbreaking point of view shots Cameron employs only adds to the incredible suspense of the story.  Watching this movie alone in a dark room is probably a pretty bad idea, as is going to bed immediately afterwards.  Nick Castle's portrayal of Michael is brilliantly subtle, and the photography and soundtrack are superb.  The image of the featureless, pasty-white mask hovering above a dark set of clothes is unnerving, and the early sightings of him in Haddenfield are amazingly effective-even when you know he is there, it is sometimes difficult to spot him.  One of the best scenes later on has Michael creeping out of a darkened room; it is as if the mask just somehow emerges out of nowhere from the shadows.  Even Michael's walk and method of suddenly sitting straight up out of a prone position are amazingly impactful.  He really does seem to represent true evil, a force of nature that keeps coming and coming all the time yet is entirely human.  He is everywhere and nowhere.  The musical score is beyond outstanding; the famous Halloween theme is immediately recognizable whenever you hear it, taking you directly back to Haddonfield.  Halloween was the first true horror movie I ever watched.  I was probably around twelve at the time, and I decided I was going to watch my first horror film the proper way-in the dark, late at night.  I am embarrassed to say that I never even made it through the opening credits.  That jack o'lantern and incredibly creepy music scared the daylights out of me.While Michael is horror's most terrifying killer, Halloween would not have seen nearly as much success had it not been for Donald Pleasance's character Dr. Loomis.  Loomis' brilliant acting and forceful presence gives Halloween something its imitators don't have, and his almost philosophical musings on Michael's innate evil give this killer a depth that other slasher villains just don't possess.  Jamie Lee Curtis, of course, was also fabulous in this, her first movie role.  No other scream queen can boast of such advanced acting skills.  I didn't think the acting jobs of the other teenagers were very good, but those characters were in the movie for one reason only, and it wasn't to steal the show.The extra features on the limited edition release are pretty good.  The "Halloween Unmasked" featurette from 1998 delivers interviews with cast and creators (including an unmasked Nick Castle, who looks more like a professor than a "killer").  The extras also include several scenes shot in 1982 and added to the television version of the movie.  The first of these provides more detail about Michael's original transfer to a minimum security institution and Dr. Loomis' attempts to prevent it from taking place.  The second one is a great scene featuring Loomis telling the teenaged, pseudo-comatose Michael that he may have fooled the hospital administrators but he hasn't fooled him.  The third offers a bit of unnecessary data on Michael's motivations.  The fourth scene features some extended dialogue between the movie's three teenaged girls and is forgettable at best.  What I found most interesting was the story of Halloween's origins.  Many have forgotten or never even knew how much of a surprise hit this movie was in 1978.  It was filmed over the course of just three weeks with a total budget of little more than three hundred thousand dollars.  Donald Pleasance filmed all of his scenes in a mere five days.  The history of Halloween is really remarkable, especially when you consider the importance and influence of this movie on the genre.  John Carpenter managed to bring together everything a horror film needs to succeed, and the entire industry has been trying to match his efforts without complete success ever since.

Answer: The image of the featureless, pasty-

If I were asked to list the top scary movies of all time, I would place John Carpenter's Halloween at the top of my list. It is much scarier than Psycho and The Exorcist, in my opinion, and the likes of Jason and Freddy pale in comparison to Michael Myers. Its influence on the genre can hardly be overstated; countless slasher films have been released over the last two decades plus, wherein each filmmaker consciously or unconsciously has tried to duplicate the force and power of this 1978 masterpiece of terror and suspense. It is this movie's genre-defining influence that earns it first place in my rankings. Is the movie scary? Yes, emphatically so. All these years later, with audiences having a number of other slasher films under their belt, Halloween may not seem as frightening as it had to have been when it was released, but it is deliciously scary nonetheless. The groundbreaking point of view shots Cameron employs only adds to the incredible suspense of the story. Watching this movie alone in a dark room is probably a pretty bad idea, as is going to bed immediately afterwards. Nick Castle's portrayal of Michael is brilliantly subtle, and the photography and soundtrack are superb. <hl> The image of the featureless, pasty- white mask hovering above a dark set of clothes is unnerving, and the early sightings of him in Haddenfield are amazingly effective-even when you know he is there, it is sometimes difficult to spot him. <hl> One of the best scenes later on has Michael creeping out of a darkened room; it is as if the mask just somehow emerges out of nowhere from the shadows. Even Michael's walk and method of suddenly sitting straight up out of a prone position are amazingly impactful. He really does seem to represent true evil, a force of nature that keeps coming and coming all the time yet is entirely human. He is everywhere and nowhere. The musical score is beyond outstanding; the famous Halloween theme is immediately recognizable whenever you hear it, taking you directly back to Haddonfield. Halloween was the first true horror movie I ever watched. I was probably around twelve at the time, and I decided I was going to watch my first horror film the proper way-in the dark, late at night. I am embarrassed to say that I never even made it through the opening credits. That jack o'lantern and incredibly creepy music scared the daylights out of me. While Michael is horror's most terrifying killer, Halloween would not have seen nearly as much success had it not been for Donald Pleasance's character Dr. Loomis. Loomis' brilliant acting and forceful presence gives Halloween something its imitators don't have, and his almost philosophical musings on Michael's innate evil give this killer a depth that other slasher villains just don't possess. Jamie Lee Curtis, of course, was also fabulous in this, her first movie role. No other scream queen can boast of such advanced acting skills. I didn't think the acting jobs of the other teenagers were very good, but those characters were in the movie for one reason only, and it wasn't to steal the show. The extra features on the limited edition release are pretty good. The "Halloween Unmasked" featurette from 1998 delivers interviews with cast and creators (including an unmasked Nick Castle, who looks more like a professor than a "killer"). The extras also include several scenes shot in 1982 and added to the television version of the movie. The first of these provides more detail about Michael's original transfer to a minimum security institution and Dr. Loomis' attempts to prevent it from taking place. The second one is a great scene featuring Loomis telling the teenaged, pseudo-comatose Michael that he may have fooled the hospital administrators but he hasn't fooled him. The third offers a bit of unnecessary data on Michael's motivations. The fourth scene features some extended dialogue between the movie's three teenaged girls and is forgettable at best. What I found most interesting was the story of Halloween's origins. Many have forgotten or never even knew how much of a surprise hit this movie was in 1978. It was filmed over the course of just three weeks with a total budget of little more than three hundred thousand dollars. Donald Pleasance filmed all of his scenes in a mere five days. The history of Halloween is really remarkable, especially when you consider the importance and influence of this movie on the genre. John Carpenter managed to bring together everything a horror film needs to succeed, and the entire industry has been trying to match his efforts without complete success ever since.

If I were asked to list the top scary movies of all time, I would place John Carpenter's Halloween at the top of my list. It is much scarier than Psycho and The Exorcist, in my opinion, and the likes of Jason and Freddy pale in comparison to Michael Myers. Its influence on the genre can hardly be overstated; countless slasher films have been released over the last two decades plus, wherein each filmmaker consciously or unconsciously has tried to duplicate the force and power of this 1978 masterpiece of terror and suspense. It is this movie's genre-defining influence that earns it first place in my rankings.Is the movie scary? Yes, emphatically so. All these years later, with audiences having a number of other slasher films under their belt, Halloween may not seem as frightening as it had to have been when it was released, but it is deliciously scary nonetheless. The groundbreaking point of view shots Cameron employs only adds to the incredible suspense of the story. Watching this movie alone in a dark room is probably a pretty bad idea, as is going to bed immediately afterwards. Nick Castle's portrayal of Michael is brilliantly subtle, and the photography and soundtrack are superb. <hl> The image of the featureless, pasty- <hl>white mask hovering above a dark set of clothes is unnerving, and the early sightings of him in Haddenfield are amazingly effective-even when you know he is there, it is sometimes difficult to spot him. One of the best scenes later on has Michael creeping out of a darkened room; it is as if the mask just somehow emerges out of nowhere from the shadows. Even Michael's walk and method of suddenly sitting straight up out of a prone position are amazingly impactful. He really does seem to represent true evil, a force of nature that keeps coming and coming all the time yet is entirely human. He is everywhere and nowhere. The musical score is beyond outstanding; the famous Halloween theme is immediately recognizable whenever you hear it, taking you directly back to Haddonfield. Halloween was the first true horror movie I ever watched. I was probably around twelve at the time, and I decided I was going to watch my first horror film the proper way-in the dark, late at night. I am embarrassed to say that I never even made it through the opening credits. That jack o'lantern and incredibly creepy music scared the daylights out of me.While Michael is horror's most terrifying killer, Halloween would not have seen nearly as much success had it not been for Donald Pleasance's character Dr. Loomis. Loomis' brilliant acting and forceful presence gives Halloween something its imitators don't have, and his almost philosophical musings on Michael's innate evil give this killer a depth that other slasher villains just don't possess. Jamie Lee Curtis, of course, was also fabulous in this, her first movie role. No other scream queen can boast of such advanced acting skills. I didn't think the acting jobs of the other teenagers were very good, but those characters were in the movie for one reason only, and it wasn't to steal the show.The extra features on the limited edition release are pretty good. The "Halloween Unmasked" featurette from 1998 delivers interviews with cast and creators (including an unmasked Nick Castle, who looks more like a professor than a "killer"). The extras also include several scenes shot in 1982 and added to the television version of the movie. The first of these provides more detail about Michael's original transfer to a minimum security institution and Dr. Loomis' attempts to prevent it from taking place. The second one is a great scene featuring Loomis telling the teenaged, pseudo-comatose Michael that he may have fooled the hospital administrators but he hasn't fooled him. The third offers a bit of unnecessary data on Michael's motivations. The fourth scene features some extended dialogue between the movie's three teenaged girls and is forgettable at best. What I found most interesting was the story of Halloween's origins. Many have forgotten or never even knew how much of a surprise hit this movie was in 1978. It was filmed over the course of just three weeks with a total budget of little more than three hundred thousand dollars. Donald Pleasance filmed all of his scenes in a mere five days. The history of Halloween is really remarkable, especially when you consider the importance and influence of this movie on the genre. John Carpenter managed to bring together everything a horror film needs to succeed, and the entire industry has been trying to match his efforts without complete success ever since.

<hl> The image of the featureless, pasty- <hl> white mask hovering above a dark set of clothes is unnerving, and the early sightings of him in Haddenfield are amazingly effective-even when you know he is there, it is sometimes difficult to spot him.