Question: Is this storyline interesting or strong?

Spoilers thar be, Maytees.Is a man created by man still a creature of God or is it a monster? Do we have the right to create meta-human life? What if we are the children of unknown fathers? For answers please consult Frankenstein. For self-important, barely comprehensible drivel please consult Prometheus.Great direction can save poor scripts. A director seduced by CGI shooting an incredibly weak screenplay by an overrated pair of writers will not. How on Earth Lindelof and Spaihts got the gig is beyond me. There are strong writers in Hollywood and others trying to get a break that could have done a better job, a MUCH better job.Ridley Scott, like Spielberg, has forgotten what making a raw, honest movie is like and is far too distracted with how excessive CGI can make it look pretty. Alien was a dark, cold, spartan film set in a bleak, merciless universe. The budget and effects limitations at the time meant that Scott had to use his imagination to create dread. Here he has all the money and effects he can ask for and the resulting film is the polar opposite. Less is more. A filmmaker like Scott should know that. All 4 Alien movies were filmed on a soundstage (save for one 'beach' shot in Alien 3). They were confined and claustrophobic. Prometheus is set in massive, wide-open spaces, which I assume is supposed to make us feel desolate and isolated. But when it cuts back and forth between interior and exterior so much the opposites negate each other, meaning we feel neither confined nor abandoned.The story is set a number of years before Alien in which a bunch of expendable characters (including a lot of nobodies) travel to a distant planet (a 4-year round trip) to find the beings that created life on Earth. When they get there they discover...a load of confusing, muddled nonsense that is far from frightening and is only just barely above mildly interesting.Alien was populated with 7 single or double-syllabled characters that felt real and authentic thanks to their quiet interactions and dialogue. We learned their names and positions quickly. Prometheus has more characters than I can count (some appear out of nowhere and quickly disappear as fast) with some of them not even being coherently named. Not that coherence is this film's strong point.Noomi Rapace is cute as Elizabeth Shaw, the lead scientist who believes in 'The Creators' (the Space Jockey creatures), but she's very miscast. Michael Fassbender as android David is the only other character who gets a notable amount of screen time. You'll care about none of them.Scott once said that the film wasn't a prequel to Alien (after originally announcing that it was) then changed his mind a short while later. If this was supposed to keep us intrigued it didn't work. If anything it only got the confusion going before anyone even saw the movie.It has some lofty ambitions, and succeeds at neither of them. The opening scene of a Creator sacrificing himself at an indefinite point in history to create mankind by putting his DNA into our water is nonsense. Was disintegrating himself the only way of doing this? Could he not have just bled into the primordial soup? Did he create the dinosaurs too? Was it a scene set just after the last ice age? Did they accidentally create primates in the process? Why did they create us in the first place? How did the early civilizations learn of the Creators? Did they visit? Why did they have a star map that led to a planet that was just a testing field?The creation of the famous Xenomorph Alien is so convoluted and preposterous. Let's see if you can follow this:Android David finds a vase of goo in the pyramid/mountain place. He touches it to his finger. He deliberately puts his finger into Holloway's champagne, infecting him as he ingests. Holloway gets sick. Before the symptoms become obvious he mates with his infertile lover Elizabeth. She becomes pregnant and quickly goes into labor. She aborts her 'hell baby' by caesarian section but just leaves it there in the operation room. Some time later the angry Creator is attacked by the full grown hell baby and is consumed by it, to a degree, for unknown reasons. That dead Creator then births a primitive Xenomorph.Pardon me, but that is a load of garbage. I honestly cannot believe something that ludicrous made its way into, what is essentially, an Alien movie. The original had so much purity and mythos. Did Ridley Scott not even watch his own movie for pointers? Lindelof and Spaihts have really painted themselves into a corner with that dumb ending too. When Shaw gets to the real Creator planet she will be the only human being in the film, if that is the way the speculative sequel will go.The mystery of the Space Jockey has been completely ruined. It could have been so much better. But Scott needs to be brought back down to Earth (pun intended) and he should have chosen his writing team more wisely. Still, it was nice to hear Jerry Goldsmith's Alien theme, albeit briefly.

Answer: just barely above mildly interesting

Spoilers thar be, Maytees. Is a man created by man still a creature of God or is it a monster? Do we have the right to create meta-human life? What if we are the children of unknown fathers? For answers please consult Frankenstein. For self-important, barely comprehensible drivel please consult Prometheus. Great direction can save poor scripts. A director seduced by CGI shooting an incredibly weak screenplay by an overrated pair of writers will not. How on Earth Lindelof and Spaihts got the gig is beyond me. There are strong writers in Hollywood and others trying to get a break that could have done a better job, a MUCH better job. Ridley Scott, like Spielberg, has forgotten what making a raw, honest movie is like and is far too distracted with how excessive CGI can make it look pretty. Alien was a dark, cold, spartan film set in a bleak, merciless universe. The budget and effects limitations at the time meant that Scott had to use his imagination to create dread. Here he has all the money and effects he can ask for and the resulting film is the polar opposite. Less is more. A filmmaker like Scott should know that. All 4 Alien movies were filmed on a soundstage (save for one 'beach' shot in Alien 3). They were confined and claustrophobic. Prometheus is set in massive, wide-open spaces, which I assume is supposed to make us feel desolate and isolated. But when it cuts back and forth between interior and exterior so much the opposites negate each other, meaning we feel neither confined nor abandoned. The story is set a number of years before Alien in which a bunch of expendable characters (including a lot of nobodies) travel to a distant planet (a 4-year round trip) to find the beings that created life on Earth. <hl> When they get there they discover...a load of confusing, muddled nonsense that is far from frightening and is only just barely above mildly interesting .Alien was populated with 7 single or double-syllabled characters that felt real and authentic thanks to their quiet interactions and dialogue. <hl> We learned their names and positions quickly. Prometheus has more characters than I can count (some appear out of nowhere and quickly disappear as fast) with some of them not even being coherently named. Not that coherence is this film's strong point. Noomi Rapace is cute as Elizabeth Shaw, the lead scientist who believes in 'The Creators' (the Space Jockey creatures), but she's very miscast. Michael Fassbender as android David is the only other character who gets a notable amount of screen time. You'll care about none of them. Scott once said that the film wasn't a prequel to Alien (after originally announcing that it was) then changed his mind a short while later. If this was supposed to keep us intrigued it didn't work. If anything it only got the confusion going before anyone even saw the movie. It has some lofty ambitions, and succeeds at neither of them. The opening scene of a Creator sacrificing himself at an indefinite point in history to create mankind by putting his DNA into our water is nonsense. Was disintegrating himself the only way of doing this? Could he not have just bled into the primordial soup? Did he create the dinosaurs too? Was it a scene set just after the last ice age? Did they accidentally create primates in the process? Why did they create us in the first place? How did the early civilizations learn of the Creators? Did they visit? Why did they have a star map that led to a planet that was just a testing field?The creation of the famous Xenomorph Alien is so convoluted and preposterous. Let's see if you can follow this:Android David finds a vase of goo in the pyramid/mountain place. He touches it to his finger. He deliberately puts his finger into Holloway's champagne, infecting him as he ingests. Holloway gets sick. Before the symptoms become obvious he mates with his infertile lover Elizabeth. She becomes pregnant and quickly goes into labor. She aborts her 'hell baby' by caesarian section but just leaves it there in the operation room. Some time later the angry Creator is attacked by the full grown hell baby and is consumed by it, to a degree, for unknown reasons. That dead Creator then births a primitive Xenomorph. Pardon me, but that is a load of garbage. I honestly cannot believe something that ludicrous made its way into, what is essentially, an Alien movie. The original had so much purity and mythos. Did Ridley Scott not even watch his own movie for pointers? Lindelof and Spaihts have really painted themselves into a corner with that dumb ending too. When Shaw gets to the real Creator planet she will be the only human being in the film, if that is the way the speculative sequel will go. The mystery of the Space Jockey has been completely ruined. It could have been so much better. But Scott needs to be brought back down to Earth (pun intended) and he should have chosen his writing team more wisely. Still, it was nice to hear Jerry Goldsmith's Alien theme, albeit briefly.

Spoilers thar be, Maytees.Is a man created by man still a creature of God or is it a monster? Do we have the right to create meta-human life? What if we are the children of unknown fathers? For answers please consult Frankenstein. For self-important, barely comprehensible drivel please consult Prometheus.Great direction can save poor scripts. A director seduced by CGI shooting an incredibly weak screenplay by an overrated pair of writers will not. How on Earth Lindelof and Spaihts got the gig is beyond me. There are strong writers in Hollywood and others trying to get a break that could have done a better job, a MUCH better job.Ridley Scott, like Spielberg, has forgotten what making a raw, honest movie is like and is far too distracted with how excessive CGI can make it look pretty. Alien was a dark, cold, spartan film set in a bleak, merciless universe. The budget and effects limitations at the time meant that Scott had to use his imagination to create dread. Here he has all the money and effects he can ask for and the resulting film is the polar opposite. Less is more. A filmmaker like Scott should know that. All 4 Alien movies were filmed on a soundstage (save for one 'beach' shot in Alien 3). They were confined and claustrophobic. Prometheus is set in massive, wide-open spaces, which I assume is supposed to make us feel desolate and isolated. But when it cuts back and forth between interior and exterior so much the opposites negate each other, meaning we feel neither confined nor abandoned.The story is set a number of years before Alien in which a bunch of expendable characters (including a lot of nobodies) travel to a distant planet (a 4-year round trip) to find the beings that created life on Earth. When they get there they discover...a load of confusing, muddled nonsense that is far from frightening and is only <hl> just barely above mildly interesting <hl>.Alien was populated with 7 single or double-syllabled characters that felt real and authentic thanks to their quiet interactions and dialogue. We learned their names and positions quickly. Prometheus has more characters than I can count (some appear out of nowhere and quickly disappear as fast) with some of them not even being coherently named. Not that coherence is this film's strong point.Noomi Rapace is cute as Elizabeth Shaw, the lead scientist who believes in 'The Creators' (the Space Jockey creatures), but she's very miscast. Michael Fassbender as android David is the only other character who gets a notable amount of screen time. You'll care about none of them.Scott once said that the film wasn't a prequel to Alien (after originally announcing that it was) then changed his mind a short while later. If this was supposed to keep us intrigued it didn't work. If anything it only got the confusion going before anyone even saw the movie.It has some lofty ambitions, and succeeds at neither of them. The opening scene of a Creator sacrificing himself at an indefinite point in history to create mankind by putting his DNA into our water is nonsense. Was disintegrating himself the only way of doing this? Could he not have just bled into the primordial soup? Did he create the dinosaurs too? Was it a scene set just after the last ice age? Did they accidentally create primates in the process? Why did they create us in the first place? How did the early civilizations learn of the Creators? Did they visit? Why did they have a star map that led to a planet that was just a testing field?The creation of the famous Xenomorph Alien is so convoluted and preposterous. Let's see if you can follow this:Android David finds a vase of goo in the pyramid/mountain place. He touches it to his finger. He deliberately puts his finger into Holloway's champagne, infecting him as he ingests. Holloway gets sick. Before the symptoms become obvious he mates with his infertile lover Elizabeth. She becomes pregnant and quickly goes into labor. She aborts her 'hell baby' by caesarian section but just leaves it there in the operation room. Some time later the angry Creator is attacked by the full grown hell baby and is consumed by it, to a degree, for unknown reasons. That dead Creator then births a primitive Xenomorph.Pardon me, but that is a load of garbage. I honestly cannot believe something that ludicrous made its way into, what is essentially, an Alien movie. The original had so much purity and mythos. Did Ridley Scott not even watch his own movie for pointers? Lindelof and Spaihts have really painted themselves into a corner with that dumb ending too. When Shaw gets to the real Creator planet she will be the only human being in the film, if that is the way the speculative sequel will go.The mystery of the Space Jockey has been completely ruined. It could have been so much better. But Scott needs to be brought back down to Earth (pun intended) and he should have chosen his writing team more wisely. Still, it was nice to hear Jerry Goldsmith's Alien theme, albeit briefly.

When they get there they discover...a load of confusing, muddled nonsense that is far from frightening and is only <hl> just barely above mildly interesting <hl> .Alien was populated with 7 single or double-syllabled characters that felt real and authentic thanks to their quiet interactions and dialogue.


Question: How is the script of the hitchcock film?

This movie was fantastic! Jennifer Lawrence's performance really warranted that Oscar win...and even though I loved "Lincoln" and Daniel Day Lewis's performance was superb, after seeing Silver Linings I was really disappointed that Bradley Cooper didn't win instead. Phenomenal performance!!! The academy owes him for this one. If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend!!! HIGHLY!!!

Answer: This movie was fantastic

This movie was fantastic !

<hl> This movie was fantastic ! <hl> Jennifer Lawrence's performance really warranted that Oscar win...and even though I loved "Lincoln" and Daniel Day Lewis's performance was superb, after seeing Silver Linings I was really disappointed that Bradley Cooper didn't win instead. Phenomenal performance!!! The academy owes him for this one. If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend!!! HIGHLY!!!

<hl> This movie was fantastic <hl>! Jennifer Lawrence's performance really warranted that Oscar win...and even though I loved "Lincoln" and Daniel Day Lewis's performance was superb, after seeing Silver Linings I was really disappointed that Bradley Cooper didn't win instead. Phenomenal performance!!! The academy owes him for this one. If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend!!! HIGHLY!!!


Question: How is the script?

***1/2 Anyone even remotely contemplating getting involved with drugs, either legal or illegal, would have second thoughts after seeing "Requiem For a Dream," a cautionary tale brilliantly directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring the magnificent Ellen Burstyn in an Oscar-nominated performance.In confronting the issue of drug addiction, Aronosky (who co-wrote the screenplay with Hubert Selby Jr.) has chosen to tell two stories that, although they run along basically parallel tracks for most of the film's duration, do occasionally intersect.  That point of intersection is the mother/son relationship between Sara Goldfarb, a lonely widow living in a rundown tenement in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, and her son, Harry, a ne'er do well loser hooked up with a couple of junkies, one of whom is his girlfriend, Marion.  Harry and his friends are well on their way to becoming addicts when the movie opens and, until the supply suddenly peters out, the three of them are having the time of their lives.  Unfortunately, once they hit hard times, all hell breaks loose and their lives quickly become a downward spiral into withdrawal, crime, prostitution, illness and prison.  This is the more conventional side of the screenplay.  Where the film really charts new territory is in the concomitant half which is focused on Sara, a well meaning woman whose obsession to lose a few pounds results in her becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed amphetamines.  For Sara, this leads to an eventual descent into disorientation, hallucinatory episodes and, eventually, madness.Some may find Aronosky's blunt directorial style to be overemphatic, hammer-like and off-putting.  To approximate the feeling of dislocation caused by the various drugs, the director employs a wide variety of cinematic techniques at his disposal: sped up motion, jarring quick cuts, visual distortion etc.  Though it can become a bit much at time, one has to admire the effort to bring the viewer as much into the minds of the characters as is conceivably possible using the resources of filmmaking.  The film is both unsparing and unflinching in showing the physical and psychological damage drugs can cause.  The last section of the film, though it could be accused of lacking subtlety, nevertheless becomes a harrowing journey into a world filled with confusion, despair and pain.Burstyn makes Sara a compelling and sympathetic figure from the very start.  Alone in her drab room, she watches T.V. all day, dreaming of the time when she will matter to someone again.  Burstyn does a brilliant job in showing how, thanks to her increasing addiction, Sara slowly loses her grip on reality and slips over into schizophrenia and madness.  And though we are appalled by the anti-social behavior both of her son, Henry, and of his cronies, we come to see even them in three-dimensional terms, especially through Harry's obvious love of his mother and the tenderness that develops in Harry and Marian's relationship.  The revelatory moment occurs when Harry realizes that his mother is also addicted to drugs, yet how hollow his words sound as he admonishes her to kick her habit.  Even he can do little but break down in tears during the cab ride home and return to his own self-absorbed drug addicted life.  (This is the last time we ever see them together as their lives diverge to follow their own paths towards mutual self-destruction).Special note should be taken of Clint Mansell's subtle and haunting musical score, which brings an air of melancholy uneasiness to this strange world of the drug-addicted mind.Brilliantly acted and superbly directed, "Requiem For a Dream," though not always easy to watch, reveals uncompromising truths that cannot be ignored.

Answer: In confronting the issue of drug addiction

***1/2 Anyone even remotely contemplating getting involved with drugs, either legal or illegal, would have second thoughts after seeing "Requiem For a Dream," a cautionary tale brilliantly directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring the magnificent Ellen Burstyn in an Oscar-nominated performance. <hl> In confronting the issue of drug addiction , Aronosky (who co-wrote the screenplay with Hubert Selby Jr.) has chosen to tell two stories that, although they run along basically parallel tracks for most of the film's duration, do occasionally intersect. <hl> That point of intersection is the mother/son relationship between Sara Goldfarb, a lonely widow living in a rundown tenement in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, and her son, Harry, a ne'er do well loser hooked up with a couple of junkies, one of whom is his girlfriend, Marion. Harry and his friends are well on their way to becoming addicts when the movie opens and, until the supply suddenly peters out, the three of them are having the time of their lives. Unfortunately, once they hit hard times, all hell breaks loose and their lives quickly become a downward spiral into withdrawal, crime, prostitution, illness and prison. This is the more conventional side of the screenplay. Where the film really charts new territory is in the concomitant half which is focused on Sara, a well meaning woman whose obsession to lose a few pounds results in her becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed amphetamines. For Sara, this leads to an eventual descent into disorientation, hallucinatory episodes and, eventually, madness. Some may find Aronosky's blunt directorial style to be overemphatic, hammer-like and off-putting. To approximate the feeling of dislocation caused by the various drugs, the director employs a wide variety of cinematic techniques at his disposal: sped up motion, jarring quick cuts, visual distortion etc. Though it can become a bit much at time, one has to admire the effort to bring the viewer as much into the minds of the characters as is conceivably possible using the resources of filmmaking. The film is both unsparing and unflinching in showing the physical and psychological damage drugs can cause. The last section of the film, though it could be accused of lacking subtlety, nevertheless becomes a harrowing journey into a world filled with confusion, despair and pain. Burstyn makes Sara a compelling and sympathetic figure from the very start. Alone in her drab room, she watches T.V. all day, dreaming of the time when she will matter to someone again. Burstyn does a brilliant job in showing how, thanks to her increasing addiction, Sara slowly loses her grip on reality and slips over into schizophrenia and madness. And though we are appalled by the anti-social behavior both of her son, Henry, and of his cronies, we come to see even them in three-dimensional terms, especially through Harry's obvious love of his mother and the tenderness that develops in Harry and Marian's relationship. The revelatory moment occurs when Harry realizes that his mother is also addicted to drugs, yet how hollow his words sound as he admonishes her to kick her habit. Even he can do little but break down in tears during the cab ride home and return to his own self-absorbed drug addicted life. (This is the last time we ever see them together as their lives diverge to follow their own paths towards mutual self-destruction).Special note should be taken of Clint Mansell's subtle and haunting musical score, which brings an air of melancholy uneasiness to this strange world of the drug-addicted mind. Brilliantly acted and superbly directed, "Requiem For a Dream," though not always easy to watch, reveals uncompromising truths that cannot be ignored.

***1/2 Anyone even remotely contemplating getting involved with drugs, either legal or illegal, would have second thoughts after seeing "Requiem For a Dream," a cautionary tale brilliantly directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring the magnificent Ellen Burstyn in an Oscar-nominated performance.<hl> In confronting the issue of drug addiction <hl>, Aronosky (who co-wrote the screenplay with Hubert Selby Jr.) has chosen to tell two stories that, although they run along basically parallel tracks for most of the film's duration, do occasionally intersect. That point of intersection is the mother/son relationship between Sara Goldfarb, a lonely widow living in a rundown tenement in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, and her son, Harry, a ne'er do well loser hooked up with a couple of junkies, one of whom is his girlfriend, Marion. Harry and his friends are well on their way to becoming addicts when the movie opens and, until the supply suddenly peters out, the three of them are having the time of their lives. Unfortunately, once they hit hard times, all hell breaks loose and their lives quickly become a downward spiral into withdrawal, crime, prostitution, illness and prison. This is the more conventional side of the screenplay. Where the film really charts new territory is in the concomitant half which is focused on Sara, a well meaning woman whose obsession to lose a few pounds results in her becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed amphetamines. For Sara, this leads to an eventual descent into disorientation, hallucinatory episodes and, eventually, madness.Some may find Aronosky's blunt directorial style to be overemphatic, hammer-like and off-putting. To approximate the feeling of dislocation caused by the various drugs, the director employs a wide variety of cinematic techniques at his disposal: sped up motion, jarring quick cuts, visual distortion etc. Though it can become a bit much at time, one has to admire the effort to bring the viewer as much into the minds of the characters as is conceivably possible using the resources of filmmaking. The film is both unsparing and unflinching in showing the physical and psychological damage drugs can cause. The last section of the film, though it could be accused of lacking subtlety, nevertheless becomes a harrowing journey into a world filled with confusion, despair and pain.Burstyn makes Sara a compelling and sympathetic figure from the very start. Alone in her drab room, she watches T.V. all day, dreaming of the time when she will matter to someone again. Burstyn does a brilliant job in showing how, thanks to her increasing addiction, Sara slowly loses her grip on reality and slips over into schizophrenia and madness. And though we are appalled by the anti-social behavior both of her son, Henry, and of his cronies, we come to see even them in three-dimensional terms, especially through Harry's obvious love of his mother and the tenderness that develops in Harry and Marian's relationship. The revelatory moment occurs when Harry realizes that his mother is also addicted to drugs, yet how hollow his words sound as he admonishes her to kick her habit. Even he can do little but break down in tears during the cab ride home and return to his own self-absorbed drug addicted life. (This is the last time we ever see them together as their lives diverge to follow their own paths towards mutual self-destruction).Special note should be taken of Clint Mansell's subtle and haunting musical score, which brings an air of melancholy uneasiness to this strange world of the drug-addicted mind.Brilliantly acted and superbly directed, "Requiem For a Dream," though not always easy to watch, reveals uncompromising truths that cannot be ignored.

<hl> In confronting the issue of drug addiction <hl> , Aronosky (who co-wrote the screenplay with Hubert Selby Jr.) has chosen to tell two stories that, although they run along basically parallel tracks for most of the film's duration, do occasionally intersect.


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

I can understand why everyone would want this to succeed, but there are three reasons why it didn't. First of all, you would think Warner Brothers would learn from the reinvention of the Batman franchise they nearly killed. I always thought the target audience should be adults, and then would eventually make it down to kids. This kind of campy storytelling will not be tolerated by the public at large anymore.Secondly, I felt there was some sentimental value attached to this film due to the passing of Christopher and Dana Reeve to not allow a more objective critique of the film. I'm not coming down on Brandon Routh at all. I think he did a wonderful job taking the Superman mantle. Aside from a few poor casting choices (Bossworth and Posey). The cast carries out very good performances. Not surprising was Kevin Spacey's marvelous performance as Lex Luthor. While clearly differing from Hackman's performance. Spacey offers a more jubulent take which adds more depth to the character.And third, what made this film lose its cohesiveness was the direction of the story. Bryan Singer did a great job of re introducing the characters. But after that failed to take the movie in a clear direction. So in truth, you only need to see the first half of the film. After the second half you might end up scratching your head.A shout to the people at Warner Brothers. You boys clearly don't have a clue wether you have a good thing or a bad thing so I'll make this real simple. Either hire a competent writer to tell a good story or sell the rights to make these movies. Superman is a good character with a wealth of material in the mythos to use. And it shouldn't be butchered by the likes of you. Take notice folks, Donner's films are going to out gross this one too.

Answer: there are three reasons

<hl> I can understand why everyone would want this to succeed, but there are three reasons why it didn't. <hl> First of all, you would think Warner Brothers would learn from the reinvention of the Batman franchise they nearly killed. I always thought the target audience should be adults, and then would eventually make it down to kids. This kind of campy storytelling will not be tolerated by the public at large anymore. Secondly, I felt there was some sentimental value attached to this film due to the passing of Christopher and Dana Reeve to not allow a more objective critique of the film. I'm not coming down on Brandon Routh at all. I think he did a wonderful job taking the Superman mantle. Aside from a few poor casting choices (Bossworth and Posey). The cast carries out very good performances. Not surprising was Kevin Spacey's marvelous performance as Lex Luthor. While clearly differing from Hackman's performance. Spacey offers a more jubulent take which adds more depth to the character. And third, what made this film lose its cohesiveness was the direction of the story. Bryan Singer did a great job of re introducing the characters. But after that failed to take the movie in a clear direction. So in truth, you only need to see the first half of the film. After the second half you might end up scratching your head. A shout to the people at Warner Brothers. You boys clearly don't have a clue wether you have a good thing or a bad thing so I'll make this real simple. Either hire a competent writer to tell a good story or sell the rights to make these movies. Superman is a good character with a wealth of material in the mythos to use. And it shouldn't be butchered by the likes of you. Take notice folks, Donner's films are going to out gross this one too.

I can understand why everyone would want this to succeed, but <hl> there are three reasons <hl> why it didn't. First of all, you would think Warner Brothers would learn from the reinvention of the Batman franchise they nearly killed. I always thought the target audience should be adults, and then would eventually make it down to kids. This kind of campy storytelling will not be tolerated by the public at large anymore.Secondly, I felt there was some sentimental value attached to this film due to the passing of Christopher and Dana Reeve to not allow a more objective critique of the film. I'm not coming down on Brandon Routh at all. I think he did a wonderful job taking the Superman mantle. Aside from a few poor casting choices (Bossworth and Posey). The cast carries out very good performances. Not surprising was Kevin Spacey's marvelous performance as Lex Luthor. While clearly differing from Hackman's performance. Spacey offers a more jubulent take which adds more depth to the character.And third, what made this film lose its cohesiveness was the direction of the story. Bryan Singer did a great job of re introducing the characters. But after that failed to take the movie in a clear direction. So in truth, you only need to see the first half of the film. After the second half you might end up scratching your head.A shout to the people at Warner Brothers. You boys clearly don't have a clue wether you have a good thing or a bad thing so I'll make this real simple. Either hire a competent writer to tell a good story or sell the rights to make these movies. Superman is a good character with a wealth of material in the mythos to use. And it shouldn't be butchered by the likes of you. Take notice folks, Donner's films are going to out gross this one too.


Question: How is the performance?

When Aileen Wournos was at large, I was in my teens and living in Central Florida, following the story with sick fascination.  I grew up in Marion County, and the first thing I looked for when I saw this movie was accurate depiction of the area, accents, and overall look of the sets. Gotta say, I felt like I was home again.Charlize Theron goes through a major transformation for this movie, where she plays Central Florida serial killer, Aileen Wournos. Not only is the make up and the extra thirty pounds striking as she was uglied down for this role, but her mannerisms, accent and general attitude complete the illusion. Charlize looks so much like Aileen Wournos that when you put her picture next to the real killer's, the resemblance is so uncanny that it gives chills. She also looks a lot like James Hetfield of Metallica fame, but then, so did Aileen Wournos.Her performance is perfect, and Christina Ricci as her selfish, lesibian lover gives a performance that is also well worth watching. Ignorant of her lover's crimes, she pushes her to make more money for them, never realizing until much later that the money is coming from the dead men that are appearing all over Central Florida.Are we expected to feel sorry for Aileen Wournos now that we have the background on how and why she snapped and became this monster? Are we supposed to be sorry that we went to the electric chair? No. While this movie shows us that Aileen's first murder was in self defense, and the second murder was made easier by the post traumatic stress of her first experience, we also see that the other killings are completely calculated and her victims were generally innocent people. Briefly, we see her anguish at killing during an especially disturbing murder scene, but Wournos was not that sorry, so that scene doesn't inspire sympathy for her so much as it leaves a person feeling cold.I would have given this movie five stars except for one thing. The relationship she has with Shelby (Ricci) is too drawn out and slow in developing at first. Then, it seems to be more important than the murders, because we have more screen time with Theron and Ricci making out, arguing, or otherwise planning their next move than we do anything else, which seems to put the murders on the backburner.However, if you want disturbing non-fiction, this movie disturbs on two levels. The first is Charlize Theron herself. She is freakin' amazing. The second is the actual story. It is very hard to watch, but you will be glad you did.

Answer: Her performance is perfect

When Aileen Wournos was at large, I was in my teens and living in Central Florida, following the story with sick fascination. I grew up in Marion County, and the first thing I looked for when I saw this movie was accurate depiction of the area, accents, and overall look of the sets. Gotta say, I felt like I was home again. Charlize Theron goes through a major transformation for this movie, where she plays Central Florida serial killer, Aileen Wournos. Not only is the make up and the extra thirty pounds striking as she was uglied down for this role, but her mannerisms, accent and general attitude complete the illusion. Charlize looks so much like Aileen Wournos that when you put her picture next to the real killer's, the resemblance is so uncanny that it gives chills. She also looks a lot like James Hetfield of Metallica fame, but then, so did Aileen Wournos. <hl> Her performance is perfect , and Christina Ricci as her selfish, lesibian lover gives a performance that is also well worth watching. <hl> Ignorant of her lover's crimes, she pushes her to make more money for them, never realizing until much later that the money is coming from the dead men that are appearing all over Central Florida. Are we expected to feel sorry for Aileen Wournos now that we have the background on how and why she snapped and became this monster? Are we supposed to be sorry that we went to the electric chair? No. While this movie shows us that Aileen's first murder was in self defense, and the second murder was made easier by the post traumatic stress of her first experience, we also see that the other killings are completely calculated and her victims were generally innocent people. Briefly, we see her anguish at killing during an especially disturbing murder scene, but Wournos was not that sorry, so that scene doesn't inspire sympathy for her so much as it leaves a person feeling cold. I would have given this movie five stars except for one thing. The relationship she has with Shelby (Ricci) is too drawn out and slow in developing at first. Then, it seems to be more important than the murders, because we have more screen time with Theron and Ricci making out, arguing, or otherwise planning their next move than we do anything else, which seems to put the murders on the backburner. However, if you want disturbing non-fiction, this movie disturbs on two levels. The first is Charlize Theron herself. She is freakin' amazing. The second is the actual story. It is very hard to watch, but you will be glad you did.

When Aileen Wournos was at large, I was in my teens and living in Central Florida, following the story with sick fascination. I grew up in Marion County, and the first thing I looked for when I saw this movie was accurate depiction of the area, accents, and overall look of the sets. Gotta say, I felt like I was home again.Charlize Theron goes through a major transformation for this movie, where she plays Central Florida serial killer, Aileen Wournos. Not only is the make up and the extra thirty pounds striking as she was uglied down for this role, but her mannerisms, accent and general attitude complete the illusion. Charlize looks so much like Aileen Wournos that when you put her picture next to the real killer's, the resemblance is so uncanny that it gives chills. She also looks a lot like James Hetfield of Metallica fame, but then, so did Aileen Wournos.<hl> Her performance is perfect <hl>, and Christina Ricci as her selfish, lesibian lover gives a performance that is also well worth watching. Ignorant of her lover's crimes, she pushes her to make more money for them, never realizing until much later that the money is coming from the dead men that are appearing all over Central Florida.Are we expected to feel sorry for Aileen Wournos now that we have the background on how and why she snapped and became this monster? Are we supposed to be sorry that we went to the electric chair? No. While this movie shows us that Aileen's first murder was in self defense, and the second murder was made easier by the post traumatic stress of her first experience, we also see that the other killings are completely calculated and her victims were generally innocent people. Briefly, we see her anguish at killing during an especially disturbing murder scene, but Wournos was not that sorry, so that scene doesn't inspire sympathy for her so much as it leaves a person feeling cold.I would have given this movie five stars except for one thing. The relationship she has with Shelby (Ricci) is too drawn out and slow in developing at first. Then, it seems to be more important than the murders, because we have more screen time with Theron and Ricci making out, arguing, or otherwise planning their next move than we do anything else, which seems to put the murders on the backburner.However, if you want disturbing non-fiction, this movie disturbs on two levels. The first is Charlize Theron herself. She is freakin' amazing. The second is the actual story. It is very hard to watch, but you will be glad you did.

<hl> Her performance is perfect <hl> , and Christina Ricci as her selfish, lesibian lover gives a performance that is also well worth watching.


Question: How is the moment?

Brian De Palma's Body Double is an underrated gem of a suspense/thriller.  Released in the early 1980's, it was bashed for being too derivative of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo, plus being too sleazy at the  same time.  But in all honesty, I feel these aspects actually worked  together to make a truly tight, suspense-filled, edge of your seat  thriller.Jake Scully (Craig Wasson) is an actor who thinks he has it all  until he discovers he's been fired from his current work and his girlfriend  Carol (Barbara Crampton in a 5 second cameo) is sleeping with another man.  While looking for work, he encounters a guy named Sam Buchard (Gregg  Henry), another actor looking for work.  Sam, noticing how unhappy Jake is,  offers him the chance to sit a house that belongs to a friend of his.  Jake  gladly agrees for he has no home to go to.  After the first night in this  new home (it's actually a cool one too) he peeks through the telescope by  the window and sees the neighbor (Deborah Shelton) doing an erotic  striptease and masturbation dance.  This continuous observation leads  Scully to the world of pornography and a porn star named Holly Body  (Melanie Griffith), who may hold the answer to a crime he witnessed.It  was late around midnight when I watched this film and I was feeling a bit  sleepy but Body Double kept me wide awake and in suspense for all of its 2  hour running time.  Honestly, I never expected this movie to be that good.  Primarily, the most important aspect is if the movie delivers suspense, and  that it does.  Extremely well, too, might I add.  Brian De Palma can be  thanked for this.  Who can forget the tunnel scene, the venture into the  mall, the crime Scully witnesses, and the really creepy climax.  Brian De  Palma is truly one of the modern masters of suspense and should direct more  films like this.  What makes the suspense work is mainly because of the  fact that Wasson is alone in his investigation.  It creates a strong  foreboding atmosphere.  The great musical score doesn't hurt either.  Another asset are also some surprising and unpredictable plot twists that  occur.  I was surprised I didn't have it figured out toward a certain point  despite some good clues (and the fact that Wasson's character figures out  part of the mystery with the same amount of hints and clues as the viewer  has).  Watching the movie again is also fun just to re-examine the twists  and see how they worked out.Yes, the film does have a countless amount  of nudity in it but it's actually vital to the movie.  After all, how would  Wasson's character witness the crime if he didn't have the proper  motivation to peep on his neighbor.  It's an interesting look at voyeurism  and how it affects a person.  Yes, some moments are a bit sleazy such as  when Wasson is watching the X-rated channel.  But I can cut that part some  slack since it is actually quite humorous and it also leads to another plot  twist.Speaking of humor, that's another element that surprised me.  I  never expected it, but Body Double does have its humorous moments that  lighten up the tone a bit.  Some of its subtle while other parts are  actually quite hilarious (especially if you watch it with a friend),  especially De Palma's portrayal of X-rated films.  Don't think that the  humor hurts because it by no means meanders the suspense.  It just makes  the film more entertaining.Acting wise, Body Double is quite good.  Craig Wasson is terrific as the everyday guy who gets caught up in some  events beyond his control.  Melanie Griffith is also fine as Holly Body  though her character wasn't quite developed well enough.  Deborah Shelton  is okay as the neighbor Wasson constanly peeps on.  She actually develops  into a likeable character despite the fact that you know what her fate is  early on in the film.  Look for Dennis Franz as an independent horror film  director.In the erotic thriller genre, Body Double certainly ranks at  the top.  It feels genuinely suspenseful and it never manipulates the  viewer like so many other films of the genre do.  And as a sidenote, watch  the movie at midnight for the full effect, just like I did.  It'll make the  scenes at night with the Indian a whole lot creepier.

Answer: underrated gem of a suspense

<hl> Brian De Palma's Body Double is an underrated gem of a suspense /thriller. <hl> Released in the early 1980's, it was bashed for being too derivative of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo, plus being too sleazy at the same time. But in all honesty, I feel these aspects actually worked together to make a truly tight, suspense-filled, edge of your seat thriller. Jake Scully (Craig Wasson) is an actor who thinks he has it all until he discovers he's been fired from his current work and his girlfriend Carol (Barbara Crampton in a 5 second cameo) is sleeping with another man. While looking for work, he encounters a guy named Sam Buchard (Gregg Henry), another actor looking for work. Sam, noticing how unhappy Jake is, offers him the chance to sit a house that belongs to a friend of his. Jake gladly agrees for he has no home to go to. After the first night in this new home (it's actually a cool one too) he peeks through the telescope by the window and sees the neighbor (Deborah Shelton) doing an erotic striptease and masturbation dance. This continuous observation leads Scully to the world of pornography and a porn star named Holly Body (Melanie Griffith), who may hold the answer to a crime he witnessed. It was late around midnight when I watched this film and I was feeling a bit sleepy but Body Double kept me wide awake and in suspense for all of its 2 hour running time. Honestly, I never expected this movie to be that good. Primarily, the most important aspect is if the movie delivers suspense, and that it does. Extremely well, too, might I add. Brian De Palma can be thanked for this. Who can forget the tunnel scene, the venture into the mall, the crime Scully witnesses, and the really creepy climax. Brian De Palma is truly one of the modern masters of suspense and should direct more films like this. What makes the suspense work is mainly because of the fact that Wasson is alone in his investigation. It creates a strong foreboding atmosphere. The great musical score doesn't hurt either. Another asset are also some surprising and unpredictable plot twists that occur. I was surprised I didn't have it figured out toward a certain point despite some good clues (and the fact that Wasson's character figures out part of the mystery with the same amount of hints and clues as the viewer has). Watching the movie again is also fun just to re-examine the twists and see how they worked out. Yes, the film does have a countless amount of nudity in it but it's actually vital to the movie. After all, how would Wasson's character witness the crime if he didn't have the proper motivation to peep on his neighbor. It's an interesting look at voyeurism and how it affects a person. Yes, some moments are a bit sleazy such as when Wasson is watching the X-rated channel. But I can cut that part some slack since it is actually quite humorous and it also leads to another plot twist. Speaking of humor, that's another element that surprised me. I never expected it, but Body Double does have its humorous moments that lighten up the tone a bit. Some of its subtle while other parts are actually quite hilarious (especially if you watch it with a friend), especially De Palma's portrayal of X-rated films. Don't think that the humor hurts because it by no means meanders the suspense. It just makes the film more entertaining. Acting wise, Body Double is quite good. Craig Wasson is terrific as the everyday guy who gets caught up in some events beyond his control. Melanie Griffith is also fine as Holly Body though her character wasn't quite developed well enough. Deborah Shelton is okay as the neighbor Wasson constanly peeps on. She actually develops into a likeable character despite the fact that you know what her fate is early on in the film. Look for Dennis Franz as an independent horror film director. In the erotic thriller genre, Body Double certainly ranks at the top. It feels genuinely suspenseful and it never manipulates the viewer like so many other films of the genre do. And as a sidenote, watch the movie at midnight for the full effect, just like I did. It'll make the scenes at night with the Indian a whole lot creepier.

Brian De Palma's Body Double is an <hl> underrated gem of a suspense <hl>/thriller. Released in the early 1980's, it was bashed for being too derivative of Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo, plus being too sleazy at the same time. But in all honesty, I feel these aspects actually worked together to make a truly tight, suspense-filled, edge of your seat thriller.Jake Scully (Craig Wasson) is an actor who thinks he has it all until he discovers he's been fired from his current work and his girlfriend Carol (Barbara Crampton in a 5 second cameo) is sleeping with another man. While looking for work, he encounters a guy named Sam Buchard (Gregg Henry), another actor looking for work. Sam, noticing how unhappy Jake is, offers him the chance to sit a house that belongs to a friend of his. Jake gladly agrees for he has no home to go to. After the first night in this new home (it's actually a cool one too) he peeks through the telescope by the window and sees the neighbor (Deborah Shelton) doing an erotic striptease and masturbation dance. This continuous observation leads Scully to the world of pornography and a porn star named Holly Body (Melanie Griffith), who may hold the answer to a crime he witnessed.It was late around midnight when I watched this film and I was feeling a bit sleepy but Body Double kept me wide awake and in suspense for all of its 2 hour running time. Honestly, I never expected this movie to be that good. Primarily, the most important aspect is if the movie delivers suspense, and that it does. Extremely well, too, might I add. Brian De Palma can be thanked for this. Who can forget the tunnel scene, the venture into the mall, the crime Scully witnesses, and the really creepy climax. Brian De Palma is truly one of the modern masters of suspense and should direct more films like this. What makes the suspense work is mainly because of the fact that Wasson is alone in his investigation. It creates a strong foreboding atmosphere. The great musical score doesn't hurt either. Another asset are also some surprising and unpredictable plot twists that occur. I was surprised I didn't have it figured out toward a certain point despite some good clues (and the fact that Wasson's character figures out part of the mystery with the same amount of hints and clues as the viewer has). Watching the movie again is also fun just to re-examine the twists and see how they worked out.Yes, the film does have a countless amount of nudity in it but it's actually vital to the movie. After all, how would Wasson's character witness the crime if he didn't have the proper motivation to peep on his neighbor. It's an interesting look at voyeurism and how it affects a person. Yes, some moments are a bit sleazy such as when Wasson is watching the X-rated channel. But I can cut that part some slack since it is actually quite humorous and it also leads to another plot twist.Speaking of humor, that's another element that surprised me. I never expected it, but Body Double does have its humorous moments that lighten up the tone a bit. Some of its subtle while other parts are actually quite hilarious (especially if you watch it with a friend), especially De Palma's portrayal of X-rated films. Don't think that the humor hurts because it by no means meanders the suspense. It just makes the film more entertaining.Acting wise, Body Double is quite good. Craig Wasson is terrific as the everyday guy who gets caught up in some events beyond his control. Melanie Griffith is also fine as Holly Body though her character wasn't quite developed well enough. Deborah Shelton is okay as the neighbor Wasson constanly peeps on. She actually develops into a likeable character despite the fact that you know what her fate is early on in the film. Look for Dennis Franz as an independent horror film director.In the erotic thriller genre, Body Double certainly ranks at the top. It feels genuinely suspenseful and it never manipulates the viewer like so many other films of the genre do. And as a sidenote, watch the movie at midnight for the full effect, just like I did. It'll make the scenes at night with the Indian a whole lot creepier.

Brian De Palma's Body Double is an <hl> underrated gem of a suspense <hl> /thriller.


Question: How is the costume?

I was really shocked when I watched this film and realized that it made no sense at all. Vronsky the lover, is so pretty, he competes with Anna for good looks. The one saving grace in the film is Jude Law who plays his part perfectly. But he isn't in the film that much, it is mainly her, Anna, who slides in and out of stylized sets looking much like a wax figure at a museum display. She does this very odd thing with her face throughout the film, twisting her lips into what looked to me like fake snarls. It was very disconcerting to see such a lovely woman deliberately make her face unattractive. The costumes and sets are gorgeous, and it's fun to watch if only for that reason. The story itself is a big disappointment.

Answer: The costumes and sets are gorgeous

I was really shocked when I watched this film and realized that it made no sense at all. Vronsky the lover, is so pretty, he competes with Anna for good looks. The one saving grace in the film is Jude Law who plays his part perfectly. But he isn't in the film that much, it is mainly her, Anna, who slides in and out of stylized sets looking much like a wax figure at a museum display. She does this very odd thing with her face throughout the film, twisting her lips into what looked to me like fake snarls. It was very disconcerting to see such a lovely woman deliberately make her face unattractive. <hl> The costumes and sets are gorgeous , and it's fun to watch if only for that reason. <hl> The story itself is a big disappointment.

I was really shocked when I watched this film and realized that it made no sense at all. Vronsky the lover, is so pretty, he competes with Anna for good looks. The one saving grace in the film is Jude Law who plays his part perfectly. But he isn't in the film that much, it is mainly her, Anna, who slides in and out of stylized sets looking much like a wax figure at a museum display. She does this very odd thing with her face throughout the film, twisting her lips into what looked to me like fake snarls. It was very disconcerting to see such a lovely woman deliberately make her face unattractive. <hl> The costumes and sets are gorgeous <hl>, and it's fun to watch if only for that reason. The story itself is a big disappointment.

<hl> The costumes and sets are gorgeous <hl> , and it's fun to watch if only for that reason.


Question: How was the script?

And I say I wasted 1.5 hours because that's all of the movie I could sit through. I didn't even bother getting to the end. The worst thing is that this movie had a roster of great actors (Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Chris Meloni, Lawrence Fishburn) but couldn't do anything with them. Their talents were wasted in this flick. The script was poor and the storyline didn't make sense. Did anyone who produced this movie read the Superman comic books? One of the main parts of the original comic that makes Superman fascinating is the fact that no one knows who Superman is, particularly Lois Lane. The Clark Kent alter ego makes the story interesting. Instead they make Clark out to be some drifter with no purpose in life. What nonsense!!Also, what made the original Superman movie (and other big budget films of the 70s like Star Wars and Close Encounters) was that less is actually more. Its time for Hollywood to get off its CGI addiction and get back to simple, down to earth special effects. Back then, the production effort was spent on characters, storyline and special effects. These days its all about the visual graphics and not about the story. Its a direction for disaster. Its why low budget films like The Kings Speech make $100M and run away with Oscars and Man of Steel lays a fat egg at the box office and burns a hole in the movie studio's wallet.

Answer: The script was poor

And I say I wasted 1.5 hours because that's all of the movie I could sit through. I didn't even bother getting to the end. The worst thing is that this movie had a roster of great actors (Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Chris Meloni, Lawrence Fishburn) but couldn't do anything with them. Their talents were wasted in this flick. <hl> The script was poor and the storyline didn't make sense. <hl> Did anyone who produced this movie read the Superman comic books? One of the main parts of the original comic that makes Superman fascinating is the fact that no one knows who Superman is, particularly Lois Lane. The Clark Kent alter ego makes the story interesting. Instead they make Clark out to be some drifter with no purpose in life. What nonsense!!Also, what made the original Superman movie (and other big budget films of the 70s like Star Wars and Close Encounters) was that less is actually more. Its time for Hollywood to get off its CGI addiction and get back to simple, down to earth special effects. Back then, the production effort was spent on characters, storyline and special effects. These days its all about the visual graphics and not about the story. Its a direction for disaster. Its why low budget films like The Kings Speech make $100M and run away with Oscars and Man of Steel lays a fat egg at the box office and burns a hole in the movie studio's wallet.

And I say I wasted 1.5 hours because that's all of the movie I could sit through. I didn't even bother getting to the end. The worst thing is that this movie had a roster of great actors (Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Chris Meloni, Lawrence Fishburn) but couldn't do anything with them. Their talents were wasted in this flick. <hl> The script was poor <hl> and the storyline didn't make sense. Did anyone who produced this movie read the Superman comic books? One of the main parts of the original comic that makes Superman fascinating is the fact that no one knows who Superman is, particularly Lois Lane. The Clark Kent alter ego makes the story interesting. Instead they make Clark out to be some drifter with no purpose in life. What nonsense!!Also, what made the original Superman movie (and other big budget films of the 70s like Star Wars and Close Encounters) was that less is actually more. Its time for Hollywood to get off its CGI addiction and get back to simple, down to earth special effects. Back then, the production effort was spent on characters, storyline and special effects. These days its all about the visual graphics and not about the story. Its a direction for disaster. Its why low budget films like The Kings Speech make $100M and run away with Oscars and Man of Steel lays a fat egg at the box office and burns a hole in the movie studio's wallet.


Question: How is video quality?

I received it in good time and so far I haven't had any discs fail.  The picture quality and sound are fantastic, and I didn't find any green tint in the movies.

Answer: The picture quality and sound are fantastic

I received it in good time and so far I haven't had any discs fail. <hl> The picture quality and sound are fantastic , and I didn't find any green tint in the movies. <hl>

I received it in good time and so far I haven't had any discs fail. <hl> The picture quality and sound are fantastic <hl>, and I didn't find any green tint in the movies.

<hl> The picture quality and sound are fantastic <hl> , and I didn't find any green tint in the movies.


Question: How is the laugh?

THis is what comedies are all about. This movie is an example of how a comedy can be really great. The cast is in top notch performance, the special effects are fantastic but not overwhelms the movie, God, everything is fantastic here. You can see clearly that all the actors,. the director, everyone involved believe in what they are doing and are havin fun doing it. Congratulations !!

Answer: everything is fantastic here

THis is what comedies are all about. This movie is an example of how a comedy can be really great. <hl> The cast is in top notch performance, the special effects are fantastic but not overwhelms the movie, God, everything is fantastic here . <hl> You can see clearly that all the actors,. the director, everyone involved believe in what they are doing and are havin fun doing it. Congratulations !!

THis is what comedies are all about. This movie is an example of how a comedy can be really great. The cast is in top notch performance, the special effects are fantastic but not overwhelms the movie, God, <hl> everything is fantastic here <hl>. You can see clearly that all the actors,. the director, everyone involved believe in what they are doing and are havin fun doing it. Congratulations !!

The cast is in top notch performance, the special effects are fantastic but not overwhelms the movie, God, <hl> everything is fantastic here <hl> .


Question: What is the storyline in this movte?

Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable! It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend!

Answer: The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable

<hl> Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable ! <hl> It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend!

Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! <hl> The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable <hl>! It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend!

Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! <hl> The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable <hl> !


Question: Was the place in high peak season, how do you rate it?

Season two was very interesting. Some of the plot was a bit disappointing. When will lady Edith ever find happiness?

Answer: Some of the plot was a bit disappointing

Season two was very interesting. <hl> Some of the plot was a bit disappointing . <hl> When will lady Edith ever find happiness?

Season two was very interesting. <hl> Some of the plot was a bit disappointing <hl>. When will lady Edith ever find happiness?

<hl> Some of the plot was a bit disappointing <hl> .


Question: How is the time?

Spider man 3, the final installment of spider man was, as expected, overdone. it followed the footstep of X-men and Pirates and other trilogies that wanted to end with a gigantic finish...except that the gigantic part was gigantic in all the wrong parts.to start off, 2 villians do keep us entertained...if they actually make sense that is. But both don't. the writers kept it a little too big, basically made both villains nearly invinsible, then at the end gave us a laughable end-of-villian finish. For example the sandman, after he's been bombed at, flushed at, shot at, beat at, thrown at.... and still live on to create more destruction, he just SUDDENTLY realized that what he was doing was wrong and then went like: "I was wrong, okay now I'm gonna go gone with the wind now" WHAT?!the venom was about the same thing, an invinsible being who is scared of bell sounds???? it's as ridiculous as saying a dragon is scared of the color red. Not convincing at the least.the theme tried to stick to the whole "superhero can't have girlfriends and normal life thing" but it still failed. Because the reasons were pretty damn weak: Peter got bad because he was infected by the venom; Mary-Jane breaks up with Peter for saving his life. none of these things actually SHOWS convincingly that superhero CAN'T have a normal life, just that when new villains came, relationship gets screwed up (the venom just HAPPENS to fall where Peter and Mary Jane is, RIIIIGHT)...which doesn't even make much sense.overall this was a huge disappointing follow-up of the last one, which was the best super-hero movie I have ever seen. the only reason I gave this movie 3 stars is because of its special effects, and Toby dancing of course.

Answer: the writers kept it a little too big

Spider man 3, the final installment of spider man was, as expected, overdone. it followed the footstep of X-men and Pirates and other trilogies that wanted to end with a gigantic finish...except that the gigantic part was gigantic in all the wrong parts.to start off, 2 villians do keep us entertained...if they actually make sense that is. But both don't. <hl> the writers kept it a little too big , basically made both villains nearly invinsible, then at the end gave us a laughable end-of-villian finish. <hl> For example the sandman, after he's been bombed at, flushed at, shot at, beat at, thrown at.... and still live on to create more destruction, he just SUDDENTLY realized that what he was doing was wrong and then went like: "I was wrong, okay now I'm gonna go gone with the wind now" WHAT?!the venom was about the same thing, an invinsible being who is scared of bell sounds???? it's as ridiculous as saying a dragon is scared of the color red. Not convincing at the least.the theme tried to stick to the whole "superhero can't have girlfriends and normal life thing" but it still failed. Because the reasons were pretty damn weak: Peter got bad because he was infected by the venom; Mary-Jane breaks up with Peter for saving his life. none of these things actually SHOWS convincingly that superhero CAN'T have a normal life, just that when new villains came, relationship gets screwed up (the venom just HAPPENS to fall where Peter and Mary Jane is, RIIIIGHT)...which doesn't even make much sense.overall this was a huge disappointing follow-up of the last one, which was the best super-hero movie I have ever seen. the only reason I gave this movie 3 stars is because of its special effects, and Toby dancing of course.

Spider man 3, the final installment of spider man was, as expected, overdone. it followed the footstep of X-men and Pirates and other trilogies that wanted to end with a gigantic finish...except that the gigantic part was gigantic in all the wrong parts.to start off, 2 villians do keep us entertained...if they actually make sense that is. But both don't. <hl> the writers kept it a little too big <hl>, basically made both villains nearly invinsible, then at the end gave us a laughable end-of-villian finish. For example the sandman, after he's been bombed at, flushed at, shot at, beat at, thrown at.... and still live on to create more destruction, he just SUDDENTLY realized that what he was doing was wrong and then went like: "I was wrong, okay now I'm gonna go gone with the wind now" WHAT?!the venom was about the same thing, an invinsible being who is scared of bell sounds???? it's as ridiculous as saying a dragon is scared of the color red. Not convincing at the least.the theme tried to stick to the whole "superhero can't have girlfriends and normal life thing" but it still failed. Because the reasons were pretty damn weak: Peter got bad because he was infected by the venom; Mary-Jane breaks up with Peter for saving his life. none of these things actually SHOWS convincingly that superhero CAN'T have a normal life, just that when new villains came, relationship gets screwed up (the venom just HAPPENS to fall where Peter and Mary Jane is, RIIIIGHT)...which doesn't even make much sense.overall this was a huge disappointing follow-up of the last one, which was the best super-hero movie I have ever seen. the only reason I gave this movie 3 stars is because of its special effects, and Toby dancing of course.

<hl> the writers kept it a little too big <hl> , basically made both villains nearly invinsible, then at the end gave us a laughable end-of-villian finish.


Question: How kind can the same character be?

Great Movie. Bought this for my wife as a chick flick. Found myself watching it several times.Movie has s few gross scenes that could have been left out.

Answer: Bought this for my wife as a chick flick

Great Movie. <hl> Bought this for my wife as a chick flick . <hl> Found myself watching it several times. Movie has s few gross scenes that could have been left out.

Great Movie. <hl> Bought this for my wife as a chick flick <hl>. Found myself watching it several times.Movie has s few gross scenes that could have been left out.

<hl> Bought this for my wife as a chick flick <hl> .


Question: How was the performance on the film?

From the widespread raves, you'd think this fairly thin coming of age tale was Shakespeare. It's not. It's an adaptation of a book I never read, but the title was slapped onto the movie to help sell it without any true reference to it in the film. Meryl Streep is the one to watch here. Her performance is outstanding. But the rest is rather cliched slapstick. I expected something more sophisticated. Silly me.

Answer: Her performance is outstanding

Her performance is outstanding .

From the widespread raves, you'd think this fairly thin coming of age tale was Shakespeare. It's not. It's an adaptation of a book I never read, but the title was slapped onto the movie to help sell it without any true reference to it in the film. Meryl Streep is the one to watch here. <hl> Her performance is outstanding . <hl> But the rest is rather cliched slapstick. I expected something more sophisticated. Silly me.

From the widespread raves, you'd think this fairly thin coming of age tale was Shakespeare. It's not. It's an adaptation of a book I never read, but the title was slapped onto the movie to help sell it without any true reference to it in the film. Meryl Streep is the one to watch here. <hl> Her performance is outstanding <hl>. But the rest is rather cliched slapstick. I expected something more sophisticated. Silly me.

<hl> Her performance is outstanding <hl> .


Question: What do you think about my performance?

Having quickly become a modern classic on stage and in acting circles, Closer-the film is also a landmark.Thirty years removed from Carnal Knowledge, Mike Nichols deftly guides this present day expose of how men and women damage each other in relationships, how impulse and instinct conflict with emotion and the heart, truly the ultimate of matters for us all.The acting is stellar, in particular Portman and Owen (both nominated for Academy Awards) as the initial foils for their partners Law and Roberts, respectively. But these are equal opportunity betrayals, put over on each other over the course of four years. The use of Damien Rice's "O," the direction by Nichols, and the film adapted screenplay by the play's writer/creator Patrick Marber are also excellent.This isn't remotely a comedy, despite moments of levity-particularly Owen-and is a sad case for the complexity of cosmopolitan culture and attitude, an absence of obescense and perspective other than whimsy and vengeance-traits that usually result in damage, especially in relationships.Such an expose, an introspection, an analysis makes this the standout it is. This will hold up over time too, because simple, direct subjects, like how and why and what happens when people struggle against each other in intimate relationships, is a subject that will never be tired.

Answer: The acting is stellar

Having quickly become a modern classic on stage and in acting circles, Closer-the film is also a landmark. Thirty years removed from Carnal Knowledge, Mike Nichols deftly guides this present day expose of how men and women damage each other in relationships, how impulse and instinct conflict with emotion and the heart, truly the ultimate of matters for us all. <hl> The acting is stellar , in particular Portman and Owen (both nominated for Academy Awards) as the initial foils for their partners Law and Roberts, respectively. <hl> But these are equal opportunity betrayals, put over on each other over the course of four years. The use of Damien Rice's "O," the direction by Nichols, and the film adapted screenplay by the play's writer/creator Patrick Marber are also excellent. This isn't remotely a comedy, despite moments of levity-particularly Owen-and is a sad case for the complexity of cosmopolitan culture and attitude, an absence of obescense and perspective other than whimsy and vengeance-traits that usually result in damage, especially in relationships. Such an expose, an introspection, an analysis makes this the standout it is. This will hold up over time too, because simple, direct subjects, like how and why and what happens when people struggle against each other in intimate relationships, is a subject that will never be tired.

Having quickly become a modern classic on stage and in acting circles, Closer-the film is also a landmark.Thirty years removed from Carnal Knowledge, Mike Nichols deftly guides this present day expose of how men and women damage each other in relationships, how impulse and instinct conflict with emotion and the heart, truly the ultimate of matters for us all.<hl> The acting is stellar <hl>, in particular Portman and Owen (both nominated for Academy Awards) as the initial foils for their partners Law and Roberts, respectively. But these are equal opportunity betrayals, put over on each other over the course of four years. The use of Damien Rice's "O," the direction by Nichols, and the film adapted screenplay by the play's writer/creator Patrick Marber are also excellent.This isn't remotely a comedy, despite moments of levity-particularly Owen-and is a sad case for the complexity of cosmopolitan culture and attitude, an absence of obescense and perspective other than whimsy and vengeance-traits that usually result in damage, especially in relationships.Such an expose, an introspection, an analysis makes this the standout it is. This will hold up over time too, because simple, direct subjects, like how and why and what happens when people struggle against each other in intimate relationships, is a subject that will never be tired.

<hl> The acting is stellar <hl> , in particular Portman and Owen (both nominated for Academy Awards) as the initial foils for their partners Law and Roberts, respectively.


Question: What is your relationship with Jesus?

I find it sad that reviewers such as "A Kid's Review" (only one of quite a few) found it necessary to use personal attacks as a way of conveying their lack of spiritual understanding of or enthusiasm for the film.  (Saying over and over again that they wish Mel had made another Mad Max film only shows they did not have the ability or desire to consider what the film was about.  You probably should not have seen it since you are clearly unable to grasp the truth of His message.)That said, I will not lower myself again to the same level as other reviewers who attack differing personal spiritual views as a means to criticize the film - I can only suppose it is because they are threatened by the message.  If you didn't like the film, say why you didn't like the film. Don't call people who DID find the film a profoundly moving experience idiots because you can't understand our faith.  It is only demonstrating your own ignorance to do so.  If you choose not to believe that Jesus was who he was portrayed as in "The Passion of the Christ" and in the Bible, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.  But save the intellectual drivel about how anyone who does believe is deluded and cannot think for themselves.  Learn to read and research and you might be surprised at what you learn.  And - By the way - I am a Christian (NOT Catholic) who was brought up Unitarian.  I know how to read and think for myself!  I'm not being blindly lead.  Free will is a basic point of Faith.  I use my free will to believe.  You use yours to ridicule.  I'm sad for you.In terms of visual message, this film was spectacular.  The cinematography is amazing.  It truly conveys the anguish most involved experienced - not just Jesus and his followers.  For those who claim that His message is missed in the film, I call your attention to the last moments on the Cross when the other men there had the chance to choose their path - the redemption one received while the other continued to ridicule.  That is the bottom line message - the redemption and forgiveness that is available to all.I have seen many reviews that criticize Mel for making it too violent.  I find this ironic.  Have you watched the violence out there on film, in video games, even on TV?  I certainly have plenty of it in my film library.  Our culture has become immune to it.  I expect that had the violence not been portrayed so graphically the film would have lost substantial impact.  That said, it was the most difficult film I have ever watched and I cried throughout the film in the theater, but I purchased the DVD.  I will watch it again when I feel I need to be reminded of the sacrifice that was made on the behalf of all who believe - and all who do not.

Answer: I am a Christian (NOT Catholic) who was brought up Unitarian

I find it sad that reviewers such as "A Kid's Review" (only one of quite a few) found it necessary to use personal attacks as a way of conveying their lack of spiritual understanding of or enthusiasm for the film. (Saying over and over again that they wish Mel had made another Mad Max film only shows they did not have the ability or desire to consider what the film was about. You probably should not have seen it since you are clearly unable to grasp the truth of His message.)That said, I will not lower myself again to the same level as other reviewers who attack differing personal spiritual views as a means to criticize the film - I can only suppose it is because they are threatened by the message. If you didn't like the film, say why you didn't like the film. Don't call people who DID find the film a profoundly moving experience idiots because you can't understand our faith. It is only demonstrating your own ignorance to do so. If you choose not to believe that Jesus was who he was portrayed as in "The Passion of the Christ" and in the Bible, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But save the intellectual drivel about how anyone who does believe is deluded and cannot think for themselves. Learn to read and research and you might be surprised at what you learn. <hl> And - By the way - I am a Christian (NOT Catholic) who was brought up Unitarian . <hl> I know how to read and think for myself! I'm not being blindly lead. Free will is a basic point of Faith. I use my free will to believe. You use yours to ridicule. I'm sad for you. In terms of visual message, this film was spectacular. The cinematography is amazing. It truly conveys the anguish most involved experienced - not just Jesus and his followers. For those who claim that His message is missed in the film, I call your attention to the last moments on the Cross when the other men there had the chance to choose their path - the redemption one received while the other continued to ridicule. That is the bottom line message - the redemption and forgiveness that is available to all. I have seen many reviews that criticize Mel for making it too violent. I find this ironic. Have you watched the violence out there on film, in video games, even on TV? I certainly have plenty of it in my film library. Our culture has become immune to it. I expect that had the violence not been portrayed so graphically the film would have lost substantial impact. That said, it was the most difficult film I have ever watched and I cried throughout the film in the theater, but I purchased the DVD. I will watch it again when I feel I need to be reminded of the sacrifice that was made on the behalf of all who believe - and all who do not.

I find it sad that reviewers such as "A Kid's Review" (only one of quite a few) found it necessary to use personal attacks as a way of conveying their lack of spiritual understanding of or enthusiasm for the film. (Saying over and over again that they wish Mel had made another Mad Max film only shows they did not have the ability or desire to consider what the film was about. You probably should not have seen it since you are clearly unable to grasp the truth of His message.)That said, I will not lower myself again to the same level as other reviewers who attack differing personal spiritual views as a means to criticize the film - I can only suppose it is because they are threatened by the message. If you didn't like the film, say why you didn't like the film. Don't call people who DID find the film a profoundly moving experience idiots because you can't understand our faith. It is only demonstrating your own ignorance to do so. If you choose not to believe that Jesus was who he was portrayed as in "The Passion of the Christ" and in the Bible, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But save the intellectual drivel about how anyone who does believe is deluded and cannot think for themselves. Learn to read and research and you might be surprised at what you learn. And - By the way - <hl> I am a Christian (NOT Catholic) who was brought up Unitarian <hl>. I know how to read and think for myself! I'm not being blindly lead. Free will is a basic point of Faith. I use my free will to believe. You use yours to ridicule. I'm sad for you.In terms of visual message, this film was spectacular. The cinematography is amazing. It truly conveys the anguish most involved experienced - not just Jesus and his followers. For those who claim that His message is missed in the film, I call your attention to the last moments on the Cross when the other men there had the chance to choose their path - the redemption one received while the other continued to ridicule. That is the bottom line message - the redemption and forgiveness that is available to all.I have seen many reviews that criticize Mel for making it too violent. I find this ironic. Have you watched the violence out there on film, in video games, even on TV? I certainly have plenty of it in my film library. Our culture has become immune to it. I expect that had the violence not been portrayed so graphically the film would have lost substantial impact. That said, it was the most difficult film I have ever watched and I cried throughout the film in the theater, but I purchased the DVD. I will watch it again when I feel I need to be reminded of the sacrifice that was made on the behalf of all who believe - and all who do not.

And - By the way - <hl> I am a Christian (NOT Catholic) who was brought up Unitarian <hl> .


Question: How is it act?

A movie with such a title that is about the scary and dark void called "space," you'd expect to be thrilling. Well, I have to tell you this movie is beyond thrilling. This film is a perfect combination of "Matrix" and "Inception" and will pump your adrenaline to a maximum level! "Gravity" is a life time experience that everyone must see! If you add to the mix that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star in it as main characters, it just doesn't get better than that!Since this movie has so many genres, it's hard to tell its main one. This movie has adventure, comedy, sorrow, suspense, thrilling scenes, intense scary scenes and so much more! The main one out of all these fantastic genres is definitely suspense. You walk in feeling bored and tired and you walk out feeling like Ryan Stone in the movie. (Sandra Bullock)The thrilling adventure begins when a young medical engineer named Ryan Stone goes up in space to help with installations for the Hubble Telescope. It seems like a casual spacewalk, but when she gets stranded away from her ship, "Explorer," she needs to get back to Earth by hitching a ride on a different station. If you want to find out how and if she and her co-worker,  Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) make it back to Earth alive, you have to watch the film.The movie has so much adventure and so many impressive and clear graphics, it's hard not to like it! You feel like you are right there, experiencing whatever the main characters experience. The acting is amazing and there is deep meaning behind it - what would you do, if you were alone in the deepest and darkest part of this entire universe, with nobody but yourself? What would your thoughts be? Would you be able to remain hopeful or just give up and let Space take you? The camera work is the best I've ever seen. Alfonso Cuarón, I give you standing ovation for directing this masterpiece.My favorite scene is when Ryan is stuck in a damaged escape pod with no fuel. She thinks she's stranded. Before she decides to give up and loose hope of returning to Earth, she starts to see Matt. Matt gets in when she does not have her helmet on and shows her that she can get back. As soon as his statement is over, he's gone. She hallucinated him but the plan worked!  It's a very interesting and important scene in the movie and that's why I like it.The movie is rated PG-13 and I honestly think it is appropriate for age 12 to 18. I give it 5 out of 5 stars and it is showing in theaters everywhere right now. I may be wrong, but I predict Oscar nominations for the cast and director of "Gravity." Let's see what happens in 2014!Reviewed by KIDS FIRST! Film Critic Gerry O. For more youth reviews go to kidsfirst.org

Answer: It's a very interesting and important scene

A movie with such a title that is about the scary and dark void called "space," you'd expect to be thrilling. Well, I have to tell you this movie is beyond thrilling. This film is a perfect combination of "Matrix" and "Inception" and will pump your adrenaline to a maximum level! "Gravity" is a life time experience that everyone must see! If you add to the mix that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star in it as main characters, it just doesn't get better than that!Since this movie has so many genres, it's hard to tell its main one. This movie has adventure, comedy, sorrow, suspense, thrilling scenes, intense scary scenes and so much more! The main one out of all these fantastic genres is definitely suspense. You walk in feeling bored and tired and you walk out feeling like Ryan Stone in the movie. (Sandra Bullock)The thrilling adventure begins when a young medical engineer named Ryan Stone goes up in space to help with installations for the Hubble Telescope. It seems like a casual spacewalk, but when she gets stranded away from her ship, "Explorer," she needs to get back to Earth by hitching a ride on a different station. If you want to find out how and if she and her co-worker, Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) make it back to Earth alive, you have to watch the film. The movie has so much adventure and so many impressive and clear graphics, it's hard not to like it! You feel like you are right there, experiencing whatever the main characters experience. The acting is amazing and there is deep meaning behind it - what would you do, if you were alone in the deepest and darkest part of this entire universe, with nobody but yourself? What would your thoughts be? Would you be able to remain hopeful or just give up and let Space take you? The camera work is the best I've ever seen. Alfonso Cuarón, I give you standing ovation for directing this masterpiece. My favorite scene is when Ryan is stuck in a damaged escape pod with no fuel. She thinks she's stranded. Before she decides to give up and loose hope of returning to Earth, she starts to see Matt. Matt gets in when she does not have her helmet on and shows her that she can get back. As soon as his statement is over, he's gone. She hallucinated him but the plan worked! <hl> It's a very interesting and important scene in the movie and that's why I like it. <hl> The movie is rated PG-13 and I honestly think it is appropriate for age 12 to 18. I give it 5 out of 5 stars and it is showing in theaters everywhere right now. I may be wrong, but I predict Oscar nominations for the cast and director of "Gravity." Let's see what happens in 2014!Reviewed by KIDS FIRST! Film Critic Gerry O. For more youth reviews go to kidsfirst.org

A movie with such a title that is about the scary and dark void called "space," you'd expect to be thrilling. Well, I have to tell you this movie is beyond thrilling. This film is a perfect combination of "Matrix" and "Inception" and will pump your adrenaline to a maximum level! "Gravity" is a life time experience that everyone must see! If you add to the mix that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star in it as main characters, it just doesn't get better than that!Since this movie has so many genres, it's hard to tell its main one. This movie has adventure, comedy, sorrow, suspense, thrilling scenes, intense scary scenes and so much more! The main one out of all these fantastic genres is definitely suspense. You walk in feeling bored and tired and you walk out feeling like Ryan Stone in the movie. (Sandra Bullock)The thrilling adventure begins when a young medical engineer named Ryan Stone goes up in space to help with installations for the Hubble Telescope. It seems like a casual spacewalk, but when she gets stranded away from her ship, "Explorer," she needs to get back to Earth by hitching a ride on a different station. If you want to find out how and if she and her co-worker, Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) make it back to Earth alive, you have to watch the film.The movie has so much adventure and so many impressive and clear graphics, it's hard not to like it! You feel like you are right there, experiencing whatever the main characters experience. The acting is amazing and there is deep meaning behind it - what would you do, if you were alone in the deepest and darkest part of this entire universe, with nobody but yourself? What would your thoughts be? Would you be able to remain hopeful or just give up and let Space take you? The camera work is the best I've ever seen. Alfonso Cuarón, I give you standing ovation for directing this masterpiece.My favorite scene is when Ryan is stuck in a damaged escape pod with no fuel. She thinks she's stranded. Before she decides to give up and loose hope of returning to Earth, she starts to see Matt. Matt gets in when she does not have her helmet on and shows her that she can get back. As soon as his statement is over, he's gone. She hallucinated him but the plan worked! <hl> It's a very interesting and important scene <hl> in the movie and that's why I like it.The movie is rated PG-13 and I honestly think it is appropriate for age 12 to 18. I give it 5 out of 5 stars and it is showing in theaters everywhere right now. I may be wrong, but I predict Oscar nominations for the cast and director of "Gravity." Let's see what happens in 2014!Reviewed by KIDS FIRST! Film Critic Gerry O. For more youth reviews go to kidsfirst.org