Question: Is the direction of the movie fantastic?

Though Peter Jackson had always claimed that the 208 minute (roughly equal to "Seven Samurai" in length) DVD version of "Lord of the Rings'" first installment was not a director's cut, its vast superiority to the shortened theatrical release becomes clear immediately.For those initally dissapointed with "Fellowship's" overly fast pace (skipping over characterizations and details for the sake of action) , the seamlessly integrated 30 minutes of footage works wonders.Here are some Improvements:1) Instead of a mere adventure movie (or a cgi cartoon, some may argue), Jackson's FOTR now feels closer to the spirit of Tolkien's world. Through more maps, longer stays at various crucial locations, more journey time, more geographic and historical references, one finaly begins to get a sense of original work's epic scope. In fact, there are a few scenes where the dialogue is copied almost verbatim, and that's always a welcomed addition.2) Every character (even Gollum) gets at least some additonal exposure and all are considerably fleshed out. Aragorn benefits the most, now seeming more like a full-fledged human being (within epic conventions, though), rather than a straight-forward action hero. Galadriel, called a "radioactive psycho" by some, has other scenes here showing her true regal nature. Merry, Pippin, and especially Gimli, are more than buffoons to liven up the proceedings. Ian Holm's Bilbo, who was one of my favorite character portrayals in the film, also gets more screen time in the beginning, just like Tolkien wrote.3) The overall themes of the book are now much more apparent - the ring's temptation, the weakness of humans, the appeal of a simple lifestyle over industrialization, and the dissappearance of civilizations (elves). The Passing of the Elves scene, is quite amazing - a shame to have been cut in the first place, as it is fairly short.4) Some of the choppier and confusing parts of the theatrical version are elaborated upon and some questions are answered, such as "How did the Ring betray Isildur ?", or "Why is Boromir so preoccupied with the Ring?" Although Sam is not explicitly introduced as Frodo's servant, he is at least shown gardening at Bag End.Many complaints that I, and other fans of the book, had with the theatrical version are now fully resolved, and by all standards, as a whole this is a much better film, already approaching that sought-after but seldom-attained classic status in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Approaching, but still stopping short of perfection, because many of the fundamental issues persist.Here are my remaining Problems with FOTR in order of annoyance:1) Gratuitous use (or abuse, rather) of slow motion - esp. in the "Noooooooooo" scene right after Gandalf's fall in Moria, and the "drowning" of Sam scene. Cheesy and detracting.2) Overbearing, generic, omni-present score. Some scenes, like Boromir's attempt to take the ring, and his death, while well-acted, should have been fine without the bathetic, cringe-worthy accompaniment. Sometimes, silence can be just as effective in generating the proper emotions. Granted, the music is not all terrible, it's just excessive - but the cliched chanting has got to go.3) While I can forgive Merry and Pippin's all-too-fast integration into the Fellowship, The Council of Elrond scene, even with the additions (which help) still doesn't quite work. Oh well, at least we get to hear the actual "ash nazg durbatuluk" speach by Gandalf. And, there's a funny hidden parody of the scene on one of the DVDs.4) Saruman is still the cartoonish villain, with no extra depth.The Extra materials on the DVD are top-notch, and as you may have heard, go into minute detail regarding all the aspects of production. They will take hours of viewing, if you care enough to investigate. Some of the audio commentaries are interesting as well - it looks like the presence of Philippa Boyens who was a harder Tolkienite than the action-oriented Jackson, helped steer certain scenes into the right direction. And without Richard Taylor, Alan Lee and John Howe, the visuals (best thing about the film in the first place) would not have been possible. We also get some discussion about New Zealand (interactive map provided) and the filming locations.In summary : if you even remotely liked the film you saw a year ago, were hoping for an improvement, and did not make the mistake of purchasing the theatrical DVD in August - by all means get this one!

Answer: director's cut, its vast superiority to the shortened

<hl> Though Peter Jackson had always claimed that the 208 minute (roughly equal to "Seven Samurai" in length) DVD version of "Lord of the Rings'" first installment was not a director's cut, its vast superiority to the shortened theatrical release becomes clear immediately. <hl> For those initally dissapointed with "Fellowship's" overly fast pace (skipping over characterizations and details for the sake of action) , the seamlessly integrated 30 minutes of footage works wonders. Here are some Improvements:1) Instead of a mere adventure movie (or a cgi cartoon, some may argue), Jackson's FOTR now feels closer to the spirit of Tolkien's world. Through more maps, longer stays at various crucial locations, more journey time, more geographic and historical references, one finaly begins to get a sense of original work's epic scope. In fact, there are a few scenes where the dialogue is copied almost verbatim, and that's always a welcomed addition.2) Every character (even Gollum) gets at least some additonal exposure and all are considerably fleshed out. Aragorn benefits the most, now seeming more like a full-fledged human being (within epic conventions, though), rather than a straight-forward action hero. Galadriel, called a "radioactive psycho" by some, has other scenes here showing her true regal nature. Merry, Pippin, and especially Gimli, are more than buffoons to liven up the proceedings. Ian Holm's Bilbo, who was one of my favorite character portrayals in the film, also gets more screen time in the beginning, just like Tolkien wrote.3) The overall themes of the book are now much more apparent - the ring's temptation, the weakness of humans, the appeal of a simple lifestyle over industrialization, and the dissappearance of civilizations (elves). The Passing of the Elves scene, is quite amazing - a shame to have been cut in the first place, as it is fairly short.4) Some of the choppier and confusing parts of the theatrical version are elaborated upon and some questions are answered, such as "How did the Ring betray Isildur ?", or "Why is Boromir so preoccupied with the Ring?" Although Sam is not explicitly introduced as Frodo's servant, he is at least shown gardening at Bag End. Many complaints that I, and other fans of the book, had with the theatrical version are now fully resolved, and by all standards, as a whole this is a much better film, already approaching that sought-after but seldom-attained classic status in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Approaching, but still stopping short of perfection, because many of the fundamental issues persist. Here are my remaining Problems with FOTR in order of annoyance:1) Gratuitous use (or abuse, rather) of slow motion - esp. in the "Noooooooooo" scene right after Gandalf's fall in Moria, and the "drowning" of Sam scene. Cheesy and detracting.2) Overbearing, generic, omni-present score. Some scenes, like Boromir's attempt to take the ring, and his death, while well-acted, should have been fine without the bathetic, cringe-worthy accompaniment. Sometimes, silence can be just as effective in generating the proper emotions. Granted, the music is not all terrible, it's just excessive - but the cliched chanting has got to go.3) While I can forgive Merry and Pippin's all-too-fast integration into the Fellowship, The Council of Elrond scene, even with the additions (which help) still doesn't quite work. Oh well, at least we get to hear the actual "ash nazg durbatuluk" speach by Gandalf. And, there's a funny hidden parody of the scene on one of the DVDs.4) Saruman is still the cartoonish villain, with no extra depth. The Extra materials on the DVD are top-notch, and as you may have heard, go into minute detail regarding all the aspects of production. They will take hours of viewing, if you care enough to investigate. Some of the audio commentaries are interesting as well - it looks like the presence of Philippa Boyens who was a harder Tolkienite than the action-oriented Jackson, helped steer certain scenes into the right direction. And without Richard Taylor, Alan Lee and John Howe, the visuals (best thing about the film in the first place) would not have been possible. We also get some discussion about New Zealand (interactive map provided) and the filming locations. In summary : if you even remotely liked the film you saw a year ago, were hoping for an improvement, and did not make the mistake of purchasing the theatrical DVD in August - by all means get this one!

Though Peter Jackson had always claimed that the 208 minute (roughly equal to "Seven Samurai" in length) DVD version of "Lord of the Rings'" first installment was not a <hl> director's cut, its vast superiority to the shortened <hl> theatrical release becomes clear immediately.For those initally dissapointed with "Fellowship's" overly fast pace (skipping over characterizations and details for the sake of action) , the seamlessly integrated 30 minutes of footage works wonders.Here are some Improvements:1) Instead of a mere adventure movie (or a cgi cartoon, some may argue), Jackson's FOTR now feels closer to the spirit of Tolkien's world. Through more maps, longer stays at various crucial locations, more journey time, more geographic and historical references, one finaly begins to get a sense of original work's epic scope. In fact, there are a few scenes where the dialogue is copied almost verbatim, and that's always a welcomed addition.2) Every character (even Gollum) gets at least some additonal exposure and all are considerably fleshed out. Aragorn benefits the most, now seeming more like a full-fledged human being (within epic conventions, though), rather than a straight-forward action hero. Galadriel, called a "radioactive psycho" by some, has other scenes here showing her true regal nature. Merry, Pippin, and especially Gimli, are more than buffoons to liven up the proceedings. Ian Holm's Bilbo, who was one of my favorite character portrayals in the film, also gets more screen time in the beginning, just like Tolkien wrote.3) The overall themes of the book are now much more apparent - the ring's temptation, the weakness of humans, the appeal of a simple lifestyle over industrialization, and the dissappearance of civilizations (elves). The Passing of the Elves scene, is quite amazing - a shame to have been cut in the first place, as it is fairly short.4) Some of the choppier and confusing parts of the theatrical version are elaborated upon and some questions are answered, such as "How did the Ring betray Isildur ?", or "Why is Boromir so preoccupied with the Ring?" Although Sam is not explicitly introduced as Frodo's servant, he is at least shown gardening at Bag End.Many complaints that I, and other fans of the book, had with the theatrical version are now fully resolved, and by all standards, as a whole this is a much better film, already approaching that sought-after but seldom-attained classic status in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Approaching, but still stopping short of perfection, because many of the fundamental issues persist.Here are my remaining Problems with FOTR in order of annoyance:1) Gratuitous use (or abuse, rather) of slow motion - esp. in the "Noooooooooo" scene right after Gandalf's fall in Moria, and the "drowning" of Sam scene. Cheesy and detracting.2) Overbearing, generic, omni-present score. Some scenes, like Boromir's attempt to take the ring, and his death, while well-acted, should have been fine without the bathetic, cringe-worthy accompaniment. Sometimes, silence can be just as effective in generating the proper emotions. Granted, the music is not all terrible, it's just excessive - but the cliched chanting has got to go.3) While I can forgive Merry and Pippin's all-too-fast integration into the Fellowship, The Council of Elrond scene, even with the additions (which help) still doesn't quite work. Oh well, at least we get to hear the actual "ash nazg durbatuluk" speach by Gandalf. And, there's a funny hidden parody of the scene on one of the DVDs.4) Saruman is still the cartoonish villain, with no extra depth.The Extra materials on the DVD are top-notch, and as you may have heard, go into minute detail regarding all the aspects of production. They will take hours of viewing, if you care enough to investigate. Some of the audio commentaries are interesting as well - it looks like the presence of Philippa Boyens who was a harder Tolkienite than the action-oriented Jackson, helped steer certain scenes into the right direction. And without Richard Taylor, Alan Lee and John Howe, the visuals (best thing about the film in the first place) would not have been possible. We also get some discussion about New Zealand (interactive map provided) and the filming locations.In summary : if you even remotely liked the film you saw a year ago, were hoping for an improvement, and did not make the mistake of purchasing the theatrical DVD in August - by all means get this one!


Question: How was the acting?

...and that's what I think I liked best about it.  Some complain that there is no plot and no jokes, yet wonder why so many of us like it enough to give it 5-stars (or offer it so many Academy Awards). The truth is what makes this movie such a gem is that it doesn't need to come out and smack you in the head with the type of dull, predicatable nonesense like most movies do these days.  It reminds me of older films; not in content or style, necessarily, but in its honest simplicity.  Why is it funny?  Not because its a constant joke machine, but because its just the opposite.  Does someone need to fall down, curse, get hurt, or otherwise make a fool out of themselves in order to be funny?  Well, to most people yes.  The reason why this movie is so funny is the same reason certain scenes in Casablanca are so funny, despite the seriousness of that film's subject: dialogue.  Because I haven't watched the movie lately, I'll leave it at that, and asure most of you that if you just relax and don't expect to see slapstick or stupid voices or people acting foolish, you might actually enjoy a movie that is funny in its simplicity.Another thing worth mentioning is Bill Murray's performance.  Many people, including critics who enjoyed the film, thought that Murray's Oscar nomination was unwarrented; that he was simply "being" Bill Murry.  That's like saying (to use the Casablanca reference again) that Bogey was just being himself and didn't have to act to be Rick Blaine.  I strongly disagree.  Murray's performance isn't in your face like most of his, or other actor's , performances.  True, he doesn't really have to "become" anyone, but he still has to act.  He has to be convincingly lonely, upset, tired, and frustrated, all the while being funny.  He doesn't just do it, it does it better than most actors could.  I'd hate to see Sean Penn try that, or even Jaime Fox a great actor, but when he does "funny" he can only seem to do a certain kind of in-your-face funny...that's not what this movie needed, and thank God thats not what it tried to do.Finally, the script.  Like its humor, its simply good, and charming.  All it asks of us is to give up two hours to watch to lonely Americans who find themselves in the same place, waiting for things to happen.  In the end, they become great friends and they decide to go out and make things happen. It doesn't need a caper of any kind. It doens't need explosions or any kind of love affair.  This is a character driven Comedic-Drama (or Dramatic-Comedy) and the chemistry between the Murray and Johansen is perfect.  I can't wait to see this movie again.

Answer: The truth

...and that's what I think I liked best about it. Some complain that there is no plot and no jokes, yet wonder why so many of us like it enough to give it 5-stars (or offer it so many Academy Awards). <hl> The truth is what makes this movie such a gem is that it doesn't need to come out and smack you in the head with the type of dull, predicatable nonesense like most movies do these days. <hl> It reminds me of older films; not in content or style, necessarily, but in its honest simplicity. Why is it funny? Not because its a constant joke machine, but because its just the opposite. Does someone need to fall down, curse, get hurt, or otherwise make a fool out of themselves in order to be funny? Well, to most people yes. The reason why this movie is so funny is the same reason certain scenes in Casablanca are so funny, despite the seriousness of that film's subject: dialogue. Because I haven't watched the movie lately, I'll leave it at that, and asure most of you that if you just relax and don't expect to see slapstick or stupid voices or people acting foolish, you might actually enjoy a movie that is funny in its simplicity. Another thing worth mentioning is Bill Murray's performance. Many people, including critics who enjoyed the film, thought that Murray's Oscar nomination was unwarrented; that he was simply "being" Bill Murry. That's like saying (to use the Casablanca reference again) that Bogey was just being himself and didn't have to act to be Rick Blaine. I strongly disagree. Murray's performance isn't in your face like most of his, or other actor's , performances. True, he doesn't really have to "become" anyone, but he still has to act. He has to be convincingly lonely, upset, tired, and frustrated, all the while being funny. He doesn't just do it, it does it better than most actors could. I'd hate to see Sean Penn try that, or even Jaime Fox a great actor, but when he does "funny" he can only seem to do a certain kind of in-your-face funny...that's not what this movie needed, and thank God thats not what it tried to do. Finally, the script. Like its humor, its simply good, and charming. All it asks of us is to give up two hours to watch to lonely Americans who find themselves in the same place, waiting for things to happen. In the end, they become great friends and they decide to go out and make things happen. It doesn't need a caper of any kind. It doens't need explosions or any kind of love affair. This is a character driven Comedic-Drama (or Dramatic-Comedy) and the chemistry between the Murray and Johansen is perfect. I can't wait to see this movie again.

...and that's what I think I liked best about it. Some complain that there is no plot and no jokes, yet wonder why so many of us like it enough to give it 5-stars (or offer it so many Academy Awards). <hl> The truth <hl> is what makes this movie such a gem is that it doesn't need to come out and smack you in the head with the type of dull, predicatable nonesense like most movies do these days. It reminds me of older films; not in content or style, necessarily, but in its honest simplicity. Why is it funny? Not because its a constant joke machine, but because its just the opposite. Does someone need to fall down, curse, get hurt, or otherwise make a fool out of themselves in order to be funny? Well, to most people yes. The reason why this movie is so funny is the same reason certain scenes in Casablanca are so funny, despite the seriousness of that film's subject: dialogue. Because I haven't watched the movie lately, I'll leave it at that, and asure most of you that if you just relax and don't expect to see slapstick or stupid voices or people acting foolish, you might actually enjoy a movie that is funny in its simplicity.Another thing worth mentioning is Bill Murray's performance. Many people, including critics who enjoyed the film, thought that Murray's Oscar nomination was unwarrented; that he was simply "being" Bill Murry. That's like saying (to use the Casablanca reference again) that Bogey was just being himself and didn't have to act to be Rick Blaine. I strongly disagree. Murray's performance isn't in your face like most of his, or other actor's , performances. True, he doesn't really have to "become" anyone, but he still has to act. He has to be convincingly lonely, upset, tired, and frustrated, all the while being funny. He doesn't just do it, it does it better than most actors could. I'd hate to see Sean Penn try that, or even Jaime Fox a great actor, but when he does "funny" he can only seem to do a certain kind of in-your-face funny...that's not what this movie needed, and thank God thats not what it tried to do.Finally, the script. Like its humor, its simply good, and charming. All it asks of us is to give up two hours to watch to lonely Americans who find themselves in the same place, waiting for things to happen. In the end, they become great friends and they decide to go out and make things happen. It doesn't need a caper of any kind. It doens't need explosions or any kind of love affair. This is a character driven Comedic-Drama (or Dramatic-Comedy) and the chemistry between the Murray and Johansen is perfect. I can't wait to see this movie again.


Question: How is role?

Firefly is a geat show. 1st the characters/actors are awesome. Each actor has had or currently owns a major role in a television/movie. Nathon Fillion is the main character he is currently on the show Castle. Kalee, Jewel Staite, was also on the show Stargate Atlantis for a awhile. Also, lets not forget Joss Whedon himself, if you liked the new Avenger's movie then you should like this show for they are both his work. My point is the cast is strong, so the comments on bad writing and acting is unfounded. As for the Western aspect of the movie, well in the show they didn't just come out and say it but there is a good reason why it has a western feel to it with a touch of Chinese heritage. Lastly, after this show was cancelled, unjustly, this show had a "HUGE" fan base. So much so that Joss Whedon felt he had grounds to finish the series in a full length feature film and he did. The Full length film finishing the Firefly series is called "Serenity" and currently holds a 4 1/2 star rating here on Amazon out of 1800 + reviews and was rated a 7.9 on IMDB out of 143,000 people.Let me explain the Western aspect and the Chinese influence to this show for those people who might find merrit in this argument. Joss Whedon doesn't just come out and say it in this show he wants the viewer to watch and come to their own understanding of why modern society in Firely has a Chinese and old western style to it. Most of Frefly's fans understand it but for those who don't let me explain...nerd moment beware....In this show Earth is no more or if there are people still on it, its a LOOOONG ways away. The Alliance is the major power in Firefly, from what I understand the Allaince is comprised of what were the remnants of the Earth's western powers(United States/Great Britain) and China. When they settled on their new worlds they formed an Alliance. This is why you see and hear people in Firefly wearing chinese clothing and speaking Chinese while still using English as their base language. Inara, who plays the companion is a great example of this and is almost always wearing a gown that has a Chinese or oriental style to it. Lastly the western feel to the story, Joss Whedon actually explained this in the show better then the Chinese part alot better, you just have to pay attention. In the Pilot episode they clearly state that after the Alliance TERRAFORMS a world they throw settlers on them with almost no resources and a few small herds and minor supplies. This is why the show has a Western Feel to it, the inner Alliance Core worlds are the Metropolitan mega cities you might be expecting in a Sci-fi show which appear later in the series while the outer rim worlds have the desolate wild west aspect. That is the story plot for the western feel to the story. However, I suspect budget played into this part aswell. Almost every TV show out there costs several million dollars just to air one episode, so the production costs of creating a futuristic city in every episode or space battles and what not probably would be to costly from a producers stand point. The movie Serenity makes up for the lack of production restraints in Firefly and spares no expense when it comes to CGI effects and scenery.

Answer: in a television/movie

Firefly is a geat show. 1st the characters/actors are awesome. <hl> Each actor has had or currently owns a major role in a television/movie . <hl> Nathon Fillion is the main character he is currently on the show Castle. Kalee, Jewel Staite, was also on the show Stargate Atlantis for a awhile. Also, lets not forget Joss Whedon himself, if you liked the new Avenger's movie then you should like this show for they are both his work. My point is the cast is strong, so the comments on bad writing and acting is unfounded. As for the Western aspect of the movie, well in the show they didn't just come out and say it but there is a good reason why it has a western feel to it with a touch of Chinese heritage. Lastly, after this show was cancelled, unjustly, this show had a "HUGE" fan base. So much so that Joss Whedon felt he had grounds to finish the series in a full length feature film and he did. The Full length film finishing the Firefly series is called "Serenity" and currently holds a 4 1/2 star rating here on Amazon out of 1800 + reviews and was rated a 7.9 on IMDB out of 143,000 people. Let me explain the Western aspect and the Chinese influence to this show for those people who might find merrit in this argument. Joss Whedon doesn't just come out and say it in this show he wants the viewer to watch and come to their own understanding of why modern society in Firely has a Chinese and old western style to it. Most of Frefly's fans understand it but for those who don't let me explain...nerd moment beware.... In this show Earth is no more or if there are people still on it, its a LOOOONG ways away. The Alliance is the major power in Firefly, from what I understand the Allaince is comprised of what were the remnants of the Earth's western powers(United States/Great Britain) and China. When they settled on their new worlds they formed an Alliance. This is why you see and hear people in Firefly wearing chinese clothing and speaking Chinese while still using English as their base language. Inara, who plays the companion is a great example of this and is almost always wearing a gown that has a Chinese or oriental style to it. Lastly the western feel to the story, Joss Whedon actually explained this in the show better then the Chinese part alot better, you just have to pay attention. In the Pilot episode they clearly state that after the Alliance TERRAFORMS a world they throw settlers on them with almost no resources and a few small herds and minor supplies. This is why the show has a Western Feel to it, the inner Alliance Core worlds are the Metropolitan mega cities you might be expecting in a Sci-fi show which appear later in the series while the outer rim worlds have the desolate wild west aspect. That is the story plot for the western feel to the story. However, I suspect budget played into this part aswell. Almost every TV show out there costs several million dollars just to air one episode, so the production costs of creating a futuristic city in every episode or space battles and what not probably would be to costly from a producers stand point. The movie Serenity makes up for the lack of production restraints in Firefly and spares no expense when it comes to CGI effects and scenery.

Firefly is a geat show. 1st the characters/actors are awesome. Each actor has had or currently owns a major role <hl> in a television/movie <hl>. Nathon Fillion is the main character he is currently on the show Castle. Kalee, Jewel Staite, was also on the show Stargate Atlantis for a awhile. Also, lets not forget Joss Whedon himself, if you liked the new Avenger's movie then you should like this show for they are both his work. My point is the cast is strong, so the comments on bad writing and acting is unfounded. As for the Western aspect of the movie, well in the show they didn't just come out and say it but there is a good reason why it has a western feel to it with a touch of Chinese heritage. Lastly, after this show was cancelled, unjustly, this show had a "HUGE" fan base. So much so that Joss Whedon felt he had grounds to finish the series in a full length feature film and he did. The Full length film finishing the Firefly series is called "Serenity" and currently holds a 4 1/2 star rating here on Amazon out of 1800 + reviews and was rated a 7.9 on IMDB out of 143,000 people.Let me explain the Western aspect and the Chinese influence to this show for those people who might find merrit in this argument. Joss Whedon doesn't just come out and say it in this show he wants the viewer to watch and come to their own understanding of why modern society in Firely has a Chinese and old western style to it. Most of Frefly's fans understand it but for those who don't let me explain...nerd moment beware....In this show Earth is no more or if there are people still on it, its a LOOOONG ways away. The Alliance is the major power in Firefly, from what I understand the Allaince is comprised of what were the remnants of the Earth's western powers(United States/Great Britain) and China. When they settled on their new worlds they formed an Alliance. This is why you see and hear people in Firefly wearing chinese clothing and speaking Chinese while still using English as their base language. Inara, who plays the companion is a great example of this and is almost always wearing a gown that has a Chinese or oriental style to it. Lastly the western feel to the story, Joss Whedon actually explained this in the show better then the Chinese part alot better, you just have to pay attention. In the Pilot episode they clearly state that after the Alliance TERRAFORMS a world they throw settlers on them with almost no resources and a few small herds and minor supplies. This is why the show has a Western Feel to it, the inner Alliance Core worlds are the Metropolitan mega cities you might be expecting in a Sci-fi show which appear later in the series while the outer rim worlds have the desolate wild west aspect. That is the story plot for the western feel to the story. However, I suspect budget played into this part aswell. Almost every TV show out there costs several million dollars just to air one episode, so the production costs of creating a futuristic city in every episode or space battles and what not probably would be to costly from a producers stand point. The movie Serenity makes up for the lack of production restraints in Firefly and spares no expense when it comes to CGI effects and scenery.

Each actor has had or currently owns a major role <hl> in a television/movie <hl> .


Question: How do you like the fan?

I am a long time fan of the web head and was not sure if the movie would do the long time comic hero justice but it did in a huge way.  The special effects are almost unbelievable.  The characters are cast with great care and the main character, the web slinger (Tobey Maguire)does the part justice.  The movie starts out slowly building the characters and half of the way through the movie you will want to restart it again.  If you are a fan of Spiderman or if not you will want to get this on DVD and VHS.  No collection is complete without this one.

Answer: I am a long time fan

<hl> I am a long time fan of the web head and was not sure if the movie would do the long time comic hero justice but it did in a huge way. <hl> The special effects are almost unbelievable. The characters are cast with great care and the main character, the web slinger (Tobey Maguire)does the part justice. The movie starts out slowly building the characters and half of the way through the movie you will want to restart it again. If you are a fan of Spiderman or if not you will want to get this on DVD and VHS. No collection is complete without this one.

<hl> I am a long time fan <hl> of the web head and was not sure if the movie would do the long time comic hero justice but it did in a huge way. The special effects are almost unbelievable. The characters are cast with great care and the main character, the web slinger (Tobey Maguire)does the part justice. The movie starts out slowly building the characters and half of the way through the movie you will want to restart it again. If you are a fan of Spiderman or if not you will want to get this on DVD and VHS. No collection is complete without this one.


Question: What is the end?

1999...a great year for films.  The Straight Story, Fight Club, and The Sixth Sense were released that year. And this one, the swansong from Stanley Kubrick.  I was so excited when this film was announced.  I counted the days (even taking off July 16th, 1999) so I could see it on its opening day. I have never done that with a film.  I am a massive Kubrick fan, and I could barely sleep the week this film was released. Seeing the opening credits have me fidgeting in my seat. And seeing "a film by Stanley Kubrick" was heartwarming.  And I wasn't disappointed. Again, even after his death, Mr. Kubrick managed to confound expectations yet again. Why did people hate this film? Pacing, no really hot sex, slow, long....I don't know.  All I know is that I loved it, and it's one of Kubrick's best.  He really creates a great dreamlike atmosphere that creates a sense of dread and claustrophobia.  The pacing is very slow, which was really bold in 1999.There were some people who felt the film was dated in its attitude towards the war between the sexes.  It isn't.  It's a universal struggle, and that there will always be conflict between men and women.  This is one of Kubrick's most visually stunning films, shot mostly in primary colors.  There are 4 sequences that equal the great sequences in other Kubrick films.  First, the opening party sequence is gorgeously shot and edited, the orgy scene, the scene in the hotel with Alan Cumming majorly flirting with Cruise (it's absolutely hilarious), and the climatic scene between Cruise and Pollack.  These 4 scenes are quite long, but they are so well put together and really create a tension (especially the Cruise/Pollack one) that transfixes you.  As for the controversy as to whether this film is actually Kubrick's final cut, it is.  I recently saw Leon Vitali, Kubrick's long time assistant, at the Lincoln Center in NYC and he said this was the final cut of the film.  Aside from the digital figures inserted into the film to avoid the NC-17 rating, it wasn't altered in any way.  Reportedly, this new 2 disc edition is the NC-17, unaltered director's cut of the film, which is a wonderful development (I have seen the unaltered orgy sequence before, and the digital figures are annoying in the censored version).  The cut that Terry Semel, Bob Daly, Tom Cruise, and Nicole Kidman saw 4 days before Stanley died was the film he wanted to be played in cinemas.  I have seen this film many times, and it gets better every time I see it.  It will be re-evaluated soon.

Answer: As for the controversy as to whether this film is actually Kubrick's final cut

1999... a great year for films. The Straight Story, Fight Club, and The Sixth Sense were released that year. And this one, the swansong from Stanley Kubrick. I was so excited when this film was announced. I counted the days (even taking off July 16th, 1999) so I could see it on its opening day. I have never done that with a film. I am a massive Kubrick fan, and I could barely sleep the week this film was released. Seeing the opening credits have me fidgeting in my seat. And seeing "a film by Stanley Kubrick" was heartwarming. And I wasn't disappointed. Again, even after his death, Mr. Kubrick managed to confound expectations yet again. Why did people hate this film? Pacing, no really hot sex, slow, long.... I don't know. All I know is that I loved it, and it's one of Kubrick's best. He really creates a great dreamlike atmosphere that creates a sense of dread and claustrophobia. The pacing is very slow, which was really bold in 1999.There were some people who felt the film was dated in its attitude towards the war between the sexes. It isn't. It's a universal struggle, and that there will always be conflict between men and women. This is one of Kubrick's most visually stunning films, shot mostly in primary colors. There are 4 sequences that equal the great sequences in other Kubrick films. First, the opening party sequence is gorgeously shot and edited, the orgy scene, the scene in the hotel with Alan Cumming majorly flirting with Cruise (it's absolutely hilarious), and the climatic scene between Cruise and Pollack. These 4 scenes are quite long, but they are so well put together and really create a tension (especially the Cruise/Pollack one) that transfixes you. <hl> As for the controversy as to whether this film is actually Kubrick's final cut , it is. <hl> I recently saw Leon Vitali, Kubrick's long time assistant, at the Lincoln Center in NYC and he said this was the final cut of the film. Aside from the digital figures inserted into the film to avoid the NC-17 rating, it wasn't altered in any way. Reportedly, this new 2 disc edition is the NC-17, unaltered director's cut of the film, which is a wonderful development (I have seen the unaltered orgy sequence before, and the digital figures are annoying in the censored version). The cut that Terry Semel, Bob Daly, Tom Cruise, and Nicole Kidman saw 4 days before Stanley died was the film he wanted to be played in cinemas. I have seen this film many times, and it gets better every time I see it. It will be re-evaluated soon.

1999...a great year for films. The Straight Story, Fight Club, and The Sixth Sense were released that year. And this one, the swansong from Stanley Kubrick. I was so excited when this film was announced. I counted the days (even taking off July 16th, 1999) so I could see it on its opening day. I have never done that with a film. I am a massive Kubrick fan, and I could barely sleep the week this film was released. Seeing the opening credits have me fidgeting in my seat. And seeing "a film by Stanley Kubrick" was heartwarming. And I wasn't disappointed. Again, even after his death, Mr. Kubrick managed to confound expectations yet again. Why did people hate this film? Pacing, no really hot sex, slow, long....I don't know. All I know is that I loved it, and it's one of Kubrick's best. He really creates a great dreamlike atmosphere that creates a sense of dread and claustrophobia. The pacing is very slow, which was really bold in 1999.There were some people who felt the film was dated in its attitude towards the war between the sexes. It isn't. It's a universal struggle, and that there will always be conflict between men and women. This is one of Kubrick's most visually stunning films, shot mostly in primary colors. There are 4 sequences that equal the great sequences in other Kubrick films. First, the opening party sequence is gorgeously shot and edited, the orgy scene, the scene in the hotel with Alan Cumming majorly flirting with Cruise (it's absolutely hilarious), and the climatic scene between Cruise and Pollack. These 4 scenes are quite long, but they are so well put together and really create a tension (especially the Cruise/Pollack one) that transfixes you. <hl> As for the controversy as to whether this film is actually Kubrick's final cut <hl>, it is. I recently saw Leon Vitali, Kubrick's long time assistant, at the Lincoln Center in NYC and he said this was the final cut of the film. Aside from the digital figures inserted into the film to avoid the NC-17 rating, it wasn't altered in any way. Reportedly, this new 2 disc edition is the NC-17, unaltered director's cut of the film, which is a wonderful development (I have seen the unaltered orgy sequence before, and the digital figures are annoying in the censored version). The cut that Terry Semel, Bob Daly, Tom Cruise, and Nicole Kidman saw 4 days before Stanley died was the film he wanted to be played in cinemas. I have seen this film many times, and it gets better every time I see it. It will be re-evaluated soon.

<hl> As for the controversy as to whether this film is actually Kubrick's final cut <hl> , it is.


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

Like the series and this season was a good follow up to the first.  all seasons are worth watching on Amazon.

Answer: this season was a good

<hl> Like the series and this season was a good follow up to the first. <hl> all seasons are worth watching on Amazon.

Like the series and <hl> this season was a good <hl> follow up to the first. all seasons are worth watching on Amazon.


Question: What was an impeccable act?

The Prestige (2006)Drama, Mystery, Thriller, 130 minutesDirected by Christopher NolanStarring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson and David BowieChristopher Nolan takes chances in an industry which usually plays it safe. The Dark Knight was so much more than a comic book adaptation and Inception was not a typical blockbuster. These stories had mass appeal, but Nolan treated his audiences with respect. Both films have a complexity which is lacking in most popular movies.If you go back to 2000 and take a look at Memento, you can see that Nolan has always believed that his audience was capable of figuring things out. One of his most complex films is The Prestige and I had to include it in this list. I've resisted the temptation to include multiple entries by one director for the most part, but Nolan is an exception because his films are so diverse. He's not using an established formula or focusing on one genre. In that respect, he's like a modern Stanley Kubrick.Cutter (Caine) explains that a magic trick consists of three parts: The pledge looks at something, the turn alters that thing and the prestige is the payoff. One example would be seeing a bird in a cage (the pledge), seeing it disappear (the turn), and finally seeing the magician produce it from his pocket (the prestige).The whole film plays out like a magic trick.The Prestige is a complex story, set in Victorian England, with one significant twist and a number of minor surprises. It deals with the story of two rival magicians, Robert Angier (Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Bale). Borden inadvertently ties a knot which results in the death of Angier's wife when she fails to escape from a tank of water. The ensuing rivalry lasts for the remainder of their lives.The two both enjoy periods of success, but are continually striving to find the ultimate trick. Both men become obsessed with success and each has a deep desire to outdo the other. We are shown other magicians and learn that success often comes at a high price. It may even result in the magician keeping secrets off the stage which limit his personal freedom.Eventually, Borden comes up with a trick that Angier can't figure out. It involves Borden entering a box on one side of the stage and emerging from a box on the other side of the stage moments later. He calls it The Transported Man.In an attempt to come up with something even better, Angier visits Nikola Tesla (Bowie) in Colorado. As you may know, Tesla was an inventor who experimented a great deal with electricity. Angier asks him to build a machine which might be used in his act. Unfortunately, science is not completely predictable. Tesla delivers, but Angier has to be willing to pay a high price that goes beyond money.I don't think I need to say any more about the plot. Bale's performance is superb and I think it's the best of his career. Jackman is also very convincing and the supporting cast is flawless. I'm always impressed by Rebecca Hall, but Bowie's cameo as Tesla was a revelation. Michael Caine holds the whole thing together and has important scenes at the beginning and end of the film.Although the running time is in excess of two hours, you'll barely notice. There's always something important happening on the screen. What elevates this film to the level of greatness is its replay value. The first time you see it, you'll miss the relevance of some of the dialogue. On repeat viewings, you'll see how clever the screenplay is. The big reveal is hinted at in the first 20 minutes of the film and you'll smile when you realize what you missed. Like Scorsese's Shutter Island, events have new meaning when you see them with full knowledge of the facts. It's clever stuff.

Answer: Bale's performance is superb and I think it's the best of his career. Jackman is also very convincing and the supporting cast is flawless. I'm always impressed by Rebecca Hall, but Bowie's cameo as Tesla was a revelation

The Prestige (2006)Drama, Mystery, Thriller, 130 minutesDirected by Christopher NolanStarring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson and David BowieChristopher Nolan takes chances in an industry which usually plays it safe. The Dark Knight was so much more than a comic book adaptation and Inception was not a typical blockbuster. These stories had mass appeal, but Nolan treated his audiences with respect. Both films have a complexity which is lacking in most popular movies. If you go back to 2000 and take a look at Memento, you can see that Nolan has always believed that his audience was capable of figuring things out. One of his most complex films is The Prestige and I had to include it in this list. I've resisted the temptation to include multiple entries by one director for the most part, but Nolan is an exception because his films are so diverse. He's not using an established formula or focusing on one genre. In that respect, he's like a modern Stanley Kubrick. Cutter (Caine) explains that a magic trick consists of three parts: The pledge looks at something, the turn alters that thing and the prestige is the payoff. One example would be seeing a bird in a cage (the pledge), seeing it disappear (the turn), and finally seeing the magician produce it from his pocket (the prestige).The whole film plays out like a magic trick. The Prestige is a complex story, set in Victorian England, with one significant twist and a number of minor surprises. It deals with the story of two rival magicians, Robert Angier (Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Bale). Borden inadvertently ties a knot which results in the death of Angier's wife when she fails to escape from a tank of water. The ensuing rivalry lasts for the remainder of their lives. The two both enjoy periods of success, but are continually striving to find the ultimate trick. Both men become obsessed with success and each has a deep desire to outdo the other. We are shown other magicians and learn that success often comes at a high price. It may even result in the magician keeping secrets off the stage which limit his personal freedom. Eventually, Borden comes up with a trick that Angier can't figure out. It involves Borden entering a box on one side of the stage and emerging from a box on the other side of the stage moments later. He calls it The Transported Man. In an attempt to come up with something even better, Angier visits Nikola Tesla (Bowie) in Colorado. As you may know, Tesla was an inventor who experimented a great deal with electricity. Angier asks him to build a machine which might be used in his act. Unfortunately, science is not completely predictable. Tesla delivers, but Angier has to be willing to pay a high price that goes beyond money. I don't think I need to say any more about the plot. <hl> Bale's performance is superb and I think it's the best of his career. Jackman is also very convincing and the supporting cast is flawless. I'm always impressed by Rebecca Hall, but Bowie's cameo as Tesla was a revelation . <hl> Michael Caine holds the whole thing together and has important scenes at the beginning and end of the film. Although the running time is in excess of two hours, you'll barely notice. There's always something important happening on the screen. What elevates this film to the level of greatness is its replay value. The first time you see it, you'll miss the relevance of some of the dialogue. On repeat viewings, you'll see how clever the screenplay is. The big reveal is hinted at in the first 20 minutes of the film and you'll smile when you realize what you missed. Like Scorsese's Shutter Island, events have new meaning when you see them with full knowledge of the facts. It's clever stuff.

The Prestige (2006)Drama, Mystery, Thriller, 130 minutesDirected by Christopher NolanStarring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson and David BowieChristopher Nolan takes chances in an industry which usually plays it safe. The Dark Knight was so much more than a comic book adaptation and Inception was not a typical blockbuster. These stories had mass appeal, but Nolan treated his audiences with respect. Both films have a complexity which is lacking in most popular movies.If you go back to 2000 and take a look at Memento, you can see that Nolan has always believed that his audience was capable of figuring things out. One of his most complex films is The Prestige and I had to include it in this list. I've resisted the temptation to include multiple entries by one director for the most part, but Nolan is an exception because his films are so diverse. He's not using an established formula or focusing on one genre. In that respect, he's like a modern Stanley Kubrick.Cutter (Caine) explains that a magic trick consists of three parts: The pledge looks at something, the turn alters that thing and the prestige is the payoff. One example would be seeing a bird in a cage (the pledge), seeing it disappear (the turn), and finally seeing the magician produce it from his pocket (the prestige).The whole film plays out like a magic trick.The Prestige is a complex story, set in Victorian England, with one significant twist and a number of minor surprises. It deals with the story of two rival magicians, Robert Angier (Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Bale). Borden inadvertently ties a knot which results in the death of Angier's wife when she fails to escape from a tank of water. The ensuing rivalry lasts for the remainder of their lives.The two both enjoy periods of success, but are continually striving to find the ultimate trick. Both men become obsessed with success and each has a deep desire to outdo the other. We are shown other magicians and learn that success often comes at a high price. It may even result in the magician keeping secrets off the stage which limit his personal freedom.Eventually, Borden comes up with a trick that Angier can't figure out. It involves Borden entering a box on one side of the stage and emerging from a box on the other side of the stage moments later. He calls it The Transported Man.In an attempt to come up with something even better, Angier visits Nikola Tesla (Bowie) in Colorado. As you may know, Tesla was an inventor who experimented a great deal with electricity. Angier asks him to build a machine which might be used in his act. Unfortunately, science is not completely predictable. Tesla delivers, but Angier has to be willing to pay a high price that goes beyond money.I don't think I need to say any more about the plot. <hl> Bale's performance is superb and I think it's the best of his career. Jackman is also very convincing and the supporting cast is flawless. I'm always impressed by Rebecca Hall, but Bowie's cameo as Tesla was a revelation <hl>. Michael Caine holds the whole thing together and has important scenes at the beginning and end of the film.Although the running time is in excess of two hours, you'll barely notice. There's always something important happening on the screen. What elevates this film to the level of greatness is its replay value. The first time you see it, you'll miss the relevance of some of the dialogue. On repeat viewings, you'll see how clever the screenplay is. The big reveal is hinted at in the first 20 minutes of the film and you'll smile when you realize what you missed. Like Scorsese's Shutter Island, events have new meaning when you see them with full knowledge of the facts. It's clever stuff.

<hl> Bale's performance is superb and I think it's the best of his career. Jackman is also very convincing and the supporting cast is flawless. I'm always impressed by Rebecca Hall, but Bowie's cameo as Tesla was a revelation <hl> .


Question: How was the costume and the actors?

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***A historical costume drama with some powerful performances, THE DUCHESS is the study of The Duchess of Devonshire and her battles with The Duke during their strained marriage.Little known director Saul Dibb gets a dream cast in Keira Knightley (Atonement) as The Duchess and Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) as The Duke. Thanks to Fiennes' uber-talent as a powerhouse actor, he helps pull the entire production up several rungs. Knightley shines unexpectedly bright in her role as the clothes-designing Duchess who steps into royalty and a marriage of the times; that is to say, something completely foreign to those of us in today's world.By contract, she is to be honorable and deliver the Duke an heir: a son. But three girls later and the Duke is becoming restless. He finds lust wherever his loins take him and the Duchess must simply bear it. A friend and confidant, Bess (Hayley Atwell), soon turns into a lady of conflict as she sleeps with, and then moves in with, the Duke. The Duchess tries to settle the matter but the Duke's power won't allow her any leeway.When a past love arrives in the Duchess' life, a powder keg erupts. Mr. Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper,Mamma Mia!) turns the Duchess' life upside down, and when she becomes pregnant with his child, the Duke's orders force her into an impossible situation: give the baby up (and give up Mr. Grey) or never see your children again.The terrible power wielded by The Duke is pulled off exceptionally well thanks to the high performance of Ralph Fiennes. Surprisingly you loathe him and then, as the film progresses, you actually pity him when he says things like, "Look at them. To be that free." His job and title have strapped him down and drove him into this role.The forced and eventual consummated acceptance of the Duke's power is probably Keira Knightley's strongest reveal for her since I've been watching her flicks.The costumes and sets are stunning in their elegance and appropriateness, as is the believable love that future Prime Minister Grey (yes, he actually becomes Prime Minister) and the Duchess feel for one another, even when forced apart by society and their own lives.This is a wonderfully done film with plenty of eye-candy sets and dark characters to make most movie watchers delight.

Answer: historical costume drama

<hl> ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***A historical costume drama with some powerful performances, THE DUCHESS is the study of The Duchess of Devonshire and her battles with The Duke during their strained marriage. <hl> Little known director Saul Dibb gets a dream cast in Keira Knightley (Atonement) as The Duchess and Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) as The Duke. Thanks to Fiennes' uber-talent as a powerhouse actor, he helps pull the entire production up several rungs. Knightley shines unexpectedly bright in her role as the clothes-designing Duchess who steps into royalty and a marriage of the times; that is to say, something completely foreign to those of us in today's world. By contract, she is to be honorable and deliver the Duke an heir: a son. But three girls later and the Duke is becoming restless. He finds lust wherever his loins take him and the Duchess must simply bear it. A friend and confidant, Bess (Hayley Atwell), soon turns into a lady of conflict as she sleeps with, and then moves in with, the Duke. The Duchess tries to settle the matter but the Duke's power won't allow her any leeway. When a past love arrives in the Duchess' life, a powder keg erupts. Mr. Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper,Mamma Mia!) turns the Duchess' life upside down, and when she becomes pregnant with his child, the Duke's orders force her into an impossible situation: give the baby up (and give up Mr. Grey) or never see your children again. The terrible power wielded by The Duke is pulled off exceptionally well thanks to the high performance of Ralph Fiennes. Surprisingly you loathe him and then, as the film progresses, you actually pity him when he says things like, "Look at them. To be that free." His job and title have strapped him down and drove him into this role. The forced and eventual consummated acceptance of the Duke's power is probably Keira Knightley's strongest reveal for her since I've been watching her flicks. The costumes and sets are stunning in their elegance and appropriateness, as is the believable love that future Prime Minister Grey (yes, he actually becomes Prime Minister) and the Duchess feel for one another, even when forced apart by society and their own lives. This is a wonderfully done film with plenty of eye-candy sets and dark characters to make most movie watchers delight.

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***A <hl> historical costume drama <hl> with some powerful performances, THE DUCHESS is the study of The Duchess of Devonshire and her battles with The Duke during their strained marriage.Little known director Saul Dibb gets a dream cast in Keira Knightley (Atonement) as The Duchess and Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) as The Duke. Thanks to Fiennes' uber-talent as a powerhouse actor, he helps pull the entire production up several rungs. Knightley shines unexpectedly bright in her role as the clothes-designing Duchess who steps into royalty and a marriage of the times; that is to say, something completely foreign to those of us in today's world.By contract, she is to be honorable and deliver the Duke an heir: a son. But three girls later and the Duke is becoming restless. He finds lust wherever his loins take him and the Duchess must simply bear it. A friend and confidant, Bess (Hayley Atwell), soon turns into a lady of conflict as she sleeps with, and then moves in with, the Duke. The Duchess tries to settle the matter but the Duke's power won't allow her any leeway.When a past love arrives in the Duchess' life, a powder keg erupts. Mr. Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper,Mamma Mia!) turns the Duchess' life upside down, and when she becomes pregnant with his child, the Duke's orders force her into an impossible situation: give the baby up (and give up Mr. Grey) or never see your children again.The terrible power wielded by The Duke is pulled off exceptionally well thanks to the high performance of Ralph Fiennes. Surprisingly you loathe him and then, as the film progresses, you actually pity him when he says things like, "Look at them. To be that free." His job and title have strapped him down and drove him into this role.The forced and eventual consummated acceptance of the Duke's power is probably Keira Knightley's strongest reveal for her since I've been watching her flicks.The costumes and sets are stunning in their elegance and appropriateness, as is the believable love that future Prime Minister Grey (yes, he actually becomes Prime Minister) and the Duchess feel for one another, even when forced apart by society and their own lives.This is a wonderfully done film with plenty of eye-candy sets and dark characters to make most movie watchers delight.


Question: How about the quality of the details?

Well, as many reviewers have said, this is a simple release, with no special features. I could care less about commentaries, behind-the-scenes, or any of that stuff, though I do like seeing trailers and deleted scenes. As for the missing scenes, I can't remember exactly what is missing, since it's been so long since I've seen it. For those of you that CANNOT LIVE without that stuff, look away. The movie itself: Wow! The scenery is beautiful, colorful, and it tweaks your imagination. Floating mountains---cool. And instead of being connected to nature, the people are actually connected to the planet. That is a somewhat new and enjoyable twist. Despite what critics say, it was a really great movie. For those that choose to blast the movie because it is a recycled story: waa, waa, waa. So what if the story isn't very original? Robin Hood, Braveheart, and Dances with Wolves were all stories about people who were persecuted for a stupid reason and fought back. It's a story that never gets old; the previous movies mentioned were all great movies, and will be forever. So, keep your boohoos to yourself and enjoy a different approach to a really good storyline. Noone is making you spend money to have this movie. If you didn't like it, review the disc only and spare all the open-minded moviegoers the time. The only reason I reviewed it is because I liked it. Noone wants to read a 5-page review about everything that sucked about it. If you didn't like it, say so and move on. We liked it, and we want to know the quality of the disc and not the movie, otherwise, we wouldn't be looking at it to begin with.

Answer: So what if the story isn't very original

Well, as many reviewers have said, this is a simple release, with no special features. I could care less about commentaries, behind-the-scenes, or any of that stuff, though I do like seeing trailers and deleted scenes. As for the missing scenes, I can't remember exactly what is missing, since it's been so long since I've seen it. For those of you that CANNOT LIVE without that stuff, look away. The movie itself: Wow! The scenery is beautiful, colorful, and it tweaks your imagination. Floating mountains---cool. And instead of being connected to nature, the people are actually connected to the planet. That is a somewhat new and enjoyable twist. Despite what critics say, it was a really great movie. For those that choose to blast the movie because it is a recycled story: waa, waa, waa. <hl> So what if the story isn't very original ? <hl> Robin Hood, Braveheart, and Dances with Wolves were all stories about people who were persecuted for a stupid reason and fought back. It's a story that never gets old; the previous movies mentioned were all great movies, and will be forever. So, keep your boohoos to yourself and enjoy a different approach to a really good storyline. Noone is making you spend money to have this movie. If you didn't like it, review the disc only and spare all the open-minded moviegoers the time. The only reason I reviewed it is because I liked it. Noone wants to read a 5-page review about everything that sucked about it. If you didn't like it, say so and move on. We liked it, and we want to know the quality of the disc and not the movie, otherwise, we wouldn't be looking at it to begin with.

Well, as many reviewers have said, this is a simple release, with no special features. I could care less about commentaries, behind-the-scenes, or any of that stuff, though I do like seeing trailers and deleted scenes. As for the missing scenes, I can't remember exactly what is missing, since it's been so long since I've seen it. For those of you that CANNOT LIVE without that stuff, look away. The movie itself: Wow! The scenery is beautiful, colorful, and it tweaks your imagination. Floating mountains---cool. And instead of being connected to nature, the people are actually connected to the planet. That is a somewhat new and enjoyable twist. Despite what critics say, it was a really great movie. For those that choose to blast the movie because it is a recycled story: waa, waa, waa. <hl> So what if the story isn't very original <hl>? Robin Hood, Braveheart, and Dances with Wolves were all stories about people who were persecuted for a stupid reason and fought back. It's a story that never gets old; the previous movies mentioned were all great movies, and will be forever. So, keep your boohoos to yourself and enjoy a different approach to a really good storyline. Noone is making you spend money to have this movie. If you didn't like it, review the disc only and spare all the open-minded moviegoers the time. The only reason I reviewed it is because I liked it. Noone wants to read a 5-page review about everything that sucked about it. If you didn't like it, say so and move on. We liked it, and we want to know the quality of the disc and not the movie, otherwise, we wouldn't be looking at it to begin with.

<hl> So what if the story isn't very original <hl> ?


Question: Do you like this last season?

The 3 seasons have been wonderful.  The writing is great, casting couldn't be better, story keeps you wanting more.  Just sorry season 3 is over.  The finale was not what I was expecting.  Waiting on pins and needles for season 4.  You can't go wrong watching this series.

Answer: The 3 seasons have been wonderful

The 3 seasons have been wonderful .

<hl> The 3 seasons have been wonderful . <hl> The writing is great, casting couldn't be better, story keeps you wanting more. Just sorry season 3 is over. The finale was not what I was expecting. Waiting on pins and needles for season 4. You can't go wrong watching this series.

<hl> The 3 seasons have been wonderful <hl>. The writing is great, casting couldn't be better, story keeps you wanting more. Just sorry season 3 is over. The finale was not what I was expecting. Waiting on pins and needles for season 4. You can't go wrong watching this series.

<hl> The 3 seasons have been wonderful <hl> .


Question: How is the script?

The Twilight Saga is unavoidable in both film and book form. The books, which I've never read, were bestsellers and the recent release of "New Moon," the film is breaking records. Teenage girls are absolutely gaga for the star Robert Pattinson and it finally intrigued me enough to watch this film. I do have a slightly biased opinion as the entire premise of the film seemed ludicrous to me, but I found a glimmer of hope in the film's director Catherine Hardwicke, who was responsible for the very honest look at teenagers with the film "Thirteen."What really surprised me about this film is that it doesn't have much of a plot. Kristen Stewart plays Isabella "Bella" Swan, who moves from Arizona to Forks, Washington to stay with her father (Billy Burke). Bella inexplicably begins school moments after arriving in Forks and discovers The Cullen's, a group of mysterious foster kids from Alaska. Even more mysterious and intriguing, to her and the rest of the student body, is Edward Cullen (Pattinson), a quiet, pale, reserved 17-year-old. Bella starts to notice the Cullen's are more than just a little different and when Edward stops a van from running her over, she realizes that he may not even be human...99% of the world knows that he's a vampire, but not a vampire of the typical, blood-sucking variety. The Cullen's are "vegetarian" vampires who only snack on the blood of animals. There's a story here, obviously but nothing really happens in it.Almost everything here is underwritten, characters and plot included. The characterization is particularly hollow and calling the characters "characters," is inaccurate; these are names with pretty faces attached to them. We're talking about a film here with an uneventful plot and characters completely void of depth. Twilight is supposed to be a supernatural love story geared towards a teenage demographic, but where's the emotion or poignancy that a love story needs in order to work as one? It's certainly not here. The dialogue in this movie is so melodramatic, I almost felt nauseous. The conversations between Bella and Edward are particularly embarrassing to watch. This does not sound like the "Romeo & Juliet" of the 21st Century, but the banter of two prepubescent children.  A quick example; "Beautiful? This is the skin of a killer, Bella."As for the performances, no one seems to be putting any effort into them. Pattinson looks uncomfortable and his facial expressions, as well as his delivery of the film's dialogue sound pain fully forced. I do believe Hardwicke is a talented director, but she made a lot of poor creative choices here starting with her decision to direct such a poorly written script in the first place. One of her most annoying directorial decisions was her overuse of the slow-motion to illustrate the anxiety of a character. I can say only one positive thing about the film's production value and that is the somber, gray color palette utilized by the film's cinematographer...It could've been really effective if the tone of the overall film had been altered. Anyone who doesn't agree with what I'm saying about the film's poor quality need look no further than the baseball scene. How horribly executed can a scene be? The acting, the dialogue, the choice of music, Pattinson's snarl, and the cinematography are so bad it's embarrassing. Finally, this scene has no relevance to the plot of the film. It's muddled, meandering filler slipped into the film as an excuse to bring the character's to a different conflict in the story. If I was not aware of the inescapable Twilight frenzy, I would swear this film was a direct-to-DVD release; no one with a knowledge or appreciation of American cinema would call Twilight a good movie.Quite frankly, watching Twilight was like watching a high-school play written by a socially inept teenager. Obviously, my opinion isn't going to affect the success of the series. Twilight is one of those things that strikes some chord with young American audiences and has become a record-breaking smash success. I guarantee that Twilight will not remain a part of the American moviegoer's consciousness for any prolonged amount of time and just like hugely successful boy bands, this is a phase that will fade away in time.Twilight left me shaking my head so many times in the two hours I was watching it. I was not fascinated, intrigued, or stimulated about anything going on in the film and the only way I can imagine someone being those things is if they were not educated. That last part is sarcasm, but quite honestly this is a film that people will look back on ten years from now and think "how did I possibly think that was any good."GRADE: D

Answer: uneventful plot and characters completely void of depth

The Twilight Saga is unavoidable in both film and book form. The books, which I've never read, were bestsellers and the recent release of "New Moon," the film is breaking records. Teenage girls are absolutely gaga for the star Robert Pattinson and it finally intrigued me enough to watch this film. I do have a slightly biased opinion as the entire premise of the film seemed ludicrous to me, but I found a glimmer of hope in the film's director Catherine Hardwicke, who was responsible for the very honest look at teenagers with the film "Thirteen. "What really surprised me about this film is that it doesn't have much of a plot. Kristen Stewart plays Isabella "Bella" Swan, who moves from Arizona to Forks, Washington to stay with her father (Billy Burke). Bella inexplicably begins school moments after arriving in Forks and discovers The Cullen's, a group of mysterious foster kids from Alaska. Even more mysterious and intriguing, to her and the rest of the student body, is Edward Cullen (Pattinson), a quiet, pale, reserved 17-year-old. Bella starts to notice the Cullen's are more than just a little different and when Edward stops a van from running her over, she realizes that he may not even be human...99% of the world knows that he's a vampire, but not a vampire of the typical, blood-sucking variety. The Cullen's are "vegetarian" vampires who only snack on the blood of animals. There's a story here, obviously but nothing really happens in it. Almost everything here is underwritten, characters and plot included. The characterization is particularly hollow and calling the characters "characters," is inaccurate; these are names with pretty faces attached to them. <hl> We're talking about a film here with an uneventful plot and characters completely void of depth . <hl> Twilight is supposed to be a supernatural love story geared towards a teenage demographic, but where's the emotion or poignancy that a love story needs in order to work as one? It's certainly not here. The dialogue in this movie is so melodramatic, I almost felt nauseous. The conversations between Bella and Edward are particularly embarrassing to watch. This does not sound like the "Romeo & Juliet" of the 21st Century, but the banter of two prepubescent children. A quick example; "Beautiful? This is the skin of a killer, Bella. "As for the performances, no one seems to be putting any effort into them. Pattinson looks uncomfortable and his facial expressions, as well as his delivery of the film's dialogue sound pain fully forced. I do believe Hardwicke is a talented director, but she made a lot of poor creative choices here starting with her decision to direct such a poorly written script in the first place. One of her most annoying directorial decisions was her overuse of the slow-motion to illustrate the anxiety of a character. I can say only one positive thing about the film's production value and that is the somber, gray color palette utilized by the film's cinematographer... It could've been really effective if the tone of the overall film had been altered. Anyone who doesn't agree with what I'm saying about the film's poor quality need look no further than the baseball scene. How horribly executed can a scene be? The acting, the dialogue, the choice of music, Pattinson's snarl, and the cinematography are so bad it's embarrassing. Finally, this scene has no relevance to the plot of the film. It's muddled, meandering filler slipped into the film as an excuse to bring the character's to a different conflict in the story. If I was not aware of the inescapable Twilight frenzy, I would swear this film was a direct-to-DVD release; no one with a knowledge or appreciation of American cinema would call Twilight a good movie. Quite frankly, watching Twilight was like watching a high-school play written by a socially inept teenager. Obviously, my opinion isn't going to affect the success of the series. Twilight is one of those things that strikes some chord with young American audiences and has become a record-breaking smash success. I guarantee that Twilight will not remain a part of the American moviegoer's consciousness for any prolonged amount of time and just like hugely successful boy bands, this is a phase that will fade away in time. Twilight left me shaking my head so many times in the two hours I was watching it. I was not fascinated, intrigued, or stimulated about anything going on in the film and the only way I can imagine someone being those things is if they were not educated. That last part is sarcasm, but quite honestly this is a film that people will look back on ten years from now and think "how did I possibly think that was any good. "GRADE: D

The Twilight Saga is unavoidable in both film and book form. The books, which I've never read, were bestsellers and the recent release of "New Moon," the film is breaking records. Teenage girls are absolutely gaga for the star Robert Pattinson and it finally intrigued me enough to watch this film. I do have a slightly biased opinion as the entire premise of the film seemed ludicrous to me, but I found a glimmer of hope in the film's director Catherine Hardwicke, who was responsible for the very honest look at teenagers with the film "Thirteen."What really surprised me about this film is that it doesn't have much of a plot. Kristen Stewart plays Isabella "Bella" Swan, who moves from Arizona to Forks, Washington to stay with her father (Billy Burke). Bella inexplicably begins school moments after arriving in Forks and discovers The Cullen's, a group of mysterious foster kids from Alaska. Even more mysterious and intriguing, to her and the rest of the student body, is Edward Cullen (Pattinson), a quiet, pale, reserved 17-year-old. Bella starts to notice the Cullen's are more than just a little different and when Edward stops a van from running her over, she realizes that he may not even be human...99% of the world knows that he's a vampire, but not a vampire of the typical, blood-sucking variety. The Cullen's are "vegetarian" vampires who only snack on the blood of animals. There's a story here, obviously but nothing really happens in it.Almost everything here is underwritten, characters and plot included. The characterization is particularly hollow and calling the characters "characters," is inaccurate; these are names with pretty faces attached to them. We're talking about a film here with an <hl> uneventful plot and characters completely void of depth <hl>. Twilight is supposed to be a supernatural love story geared towards a teenage demographic, but where's the emotion or poignancy that a love story needs in order to work as one? It's certainly not here. The dialogue in this movie is so melodramatic, I almost felt nauseous. The conversations between Bella and Edward are particularly embarrassing to watch. This does not sound like the "Romeo & Juliet" of the 21st Century, but the banter of two prepubescent children. A quick example; "Beautiful? This is the skin of a killer, Bella."As for the performances, no one seems to be putting any effort into them. Pattinson looks uncomfortable and his facial expressions, as well as his delivery of the film's dialogue sound pain fully forced. I do believe Hardwicke is a talented director, but she made a lot of poor creative choices here starting with her decision to direct such a poorly written script in the first place. One of her most annoying directorial decisions was her overuse of the slow-motion to illustrate the anxiety of a character. I can say only one positive thing about the film's production value and that is the somber, gray color palette utilized by the film's cinematographer...It could've been really effective if the tone of the overall film had been altered. Anyone who doesn't agree with what I'm saying about the film's poor quality need look no further than the baseball scene. How horribly executed can a scene be? The acting, the dialogue, the choice of music, Pattinson's snarl, and the cinematography are so bad it's embarrassing. Finally, this scene has no relevance to the plot of the film. It's muddled, meandering filler slipped into the film as an excuse to bring the character's to a different conflict in the story. If I was not aware of the inescapable Twilight frenzy, I would swear this film was a direct-to-DVD release; no one with a knowledge or appreciation of American cinema would call Twilight a good movie.Quite frankly, watching Twilight was like watching a high-school play written by a socially inept teenager. Obviously, my opinion isn't going to affect the success of the series. Twilight is one of those things that strikes some chord with young American audiences and has become a record-breaking smash success. I guarantee that Twilight will not remain a part of the American moviegoer's consciousness for any prolonged amount of time and just like hugely successful boy bands, this is a phase that will fade away in time.Twilight left me shaking my head so many times in the two hours I was watching it. I was not fascinated, intrigued, or stimulated about anything going on in the film and the only way I can imagine someone being those things is if they were not educated. That last part is sarcasm, but quite honestly this is a film that people will look back on ten years from now and think "how did I possibly think that was any good."GRADE: D

We're talking about a film here with an <hl> uneventful plot and characters completely void of depth <hl> .


Question: How bad is the sound?

For other old timers out there who may have seen the film when it was released in theaters in '87, I wanted to mention that this print is excellent, the transfer to Blu-Ray is nearly flawless and the experience is just about guaranteed to be better than what we saw in movie theaters when it was released. In particular, kudos to the quality of the sound reproduction, which I've found to be excellent whether pushed through a 5.1 home theater or stereo headphones.

Answer: which I've found to be excellent whether pushed through a 5.1 home theater or stereo headphones

For other old timers out there who may have seen the film when it was released in theaters in '87, I wanted to mention that this print is excellent, the transfer to Blu-Ray is nearly flawless and the experience is just about guaranteed to be better than what we saw in movie theaters when it was released. <hl> In particular, kudos to the quality of the sound reproduction, which I've found to be excellent whether pushed through a 5.1 home theater or stereo headphones . <hl>

For other old timers out there who may have seen the film when it was released in theaters in '87, I wanted to mention that this print is excellent, the transfer to Blu-Ray is nearly flawless and the experience is just about guaranteed to be better than what we saw in movie theaters when it was released. In particular, kudos to the quality of the sound reproduction, <hl> which I've found to be excellent whether pushed through a 5.1 home theater or stereo headphones <hl>.

In particular, kudos to the quality of the sound reproduction, <hl> which I've found to be excellent whether pushed through a 5.1 home theater or stereo headphones <hl> .


Question: How is it act?

del Toro's visual imagination is present in Pacific Rim, but his storytelling definitely is not.  At least the first half of the film is made up of voice over narratives, time jumps, and flashbacks.  It doesn't have a story so much as a vast sea of clumsy exposition, meant to establish extremely rote character arcs while instructing the audience on what everything is.  Charlie Hunnam's and Rinko Kinkuchi's characters both must overcome a lame contrived trauma beset on them by the Kaiju, giant CGI aliens/sea monsters.  Unfortunately, the dialogue is clunky when the characters talk to one another as well.  The actors must constantly fight del Toro's scifi mumbo jumbo to try to convey humanity.  Overall, Pacific Rim leaves the impression that its ideas were way to big for one movie, or simply not thought through.

Answer: the dialogue is clunky

del Toro's visual imagination is present in Pacific Rim, but his storytelling definitely is not. At least the first half of the film is made up of voice over narratives, time jumps, and flashbacks. It doesn't have a story so much as a vast sea of clumsy exposition, meant to establish extremely rote character arcs while instructing the audience on what everything is. Charlie Hunnam's and Rinko Kinkuchi's characters both must overcome a lame contrived trauma beset on them by the Kaiju, giant CGI aliens/sea monsters. <hl> Unfortunately, the dialogue is clunky when the characters talk to one another as well. <hl> The actors must constantly fight del Toro's scifi mumbo jumbo to try to convey humanity. Overall, Pacific Rim leaves the impression that its ideas were way to big for one movie, or simply not thought through.

del Toro's visual imagination is present in Pacific Rim, but his storytelling definitely is not. At least the first half of the film is made up of voice over narratives, time jumps, and flashbacks. It doesn't have a story so much as a vast sea of clumsy exposition, meant to establish extremely rote character arcs while instructing the audience on what everything is. Charlie Hunnam's and Rinko Kinkuchi's characters both must overcome a lame contrived trauma beset on them by the Kaiju, giant CGI aliens/sea monsters. Unfortunately, <hl> the dialogue is clunky <hl> when the characters talk to one another as well. The actors must constantly fight del Toro's scifi mumbo jumbo to try to convey humanity. Overall, Pacific Rim leaves the impression that its ideas were way to big for one movie, or simply not thought through.


Question: How is the stylistical act of the Tenebre movie?

Actually, "Dennis the Menace" is probably the better movie, in retrospect.I just saw "Revenge of the Sith" last night, and it reminded me how awful "Attack of the Clones" truly is; not because "Sith" is a good movie, but because it was pretty much on the same level.Anyway, two stars for "Clones" may indeed be on the generous side; I will concede the two for the amazing CGI (which, simultaneously, is part of the reason why this film is so terrible). Terrible acting? Got it. Terrible directing? Gotcha. No intelligence, heart, emotion, or, well...anything else aside from CGI? Done. Lucas has really outdone himself with this film; it may even be worse than "The Matrix Reloaded" and comes darn close to matching "Terminator 3" for worst prequel/sequel ever made. The power of hype in our society is truly astounding; despite the fact that not even a labotomized twelve-year old (for whom, according to Lucas's pathetic excuse, the picture is designed (minus the labotomy, of course)) could keep their eyes open long enough to witness this spasm-inducing lethargy, it made nearly $300 mill. at the box office. Of course, the power of hype made the original "Star Wars" the biggest success of all time (inflation-adjusted, it's nearly double "Titanic"), despite the fact that that movie really isn't all that amazing either (that's another story...).The problem with "Clones," and "Menace" and "Sith," (and even the original "Star Wars") is George Lucas. Good writer, he is (note "Indiana Jones"); good director, he is clearly not. He should have handed this series to Spielberg, but naturally his ego got in the way. Too bad, because had "Menace" been the great film it needed to be, this could have become the most popular trilogy of all time. Like the new "Matrix" and "Terminator" "films," all we can do is simply forget that these pre/sequels exist, so that we can retain some enjoyment from the originals (in regard to retaining enjoyment from the "Star Wars" series, I'm talking about episodes 5 and 6, the only two good movies of them all).A side note: the line of dialogue refering to Anakin's dislike for sand may just be the most laughable ever spoken in an American film. At least Lucas will be remembered for something...?

Answer: Dennis the Menace" is probably the better movie, in retrospect.I just saw

<hl> Actually, " Dennis the Menace" is probably the better movie, in retrospect.I just saw "Revenge of the Sith" last night, and it reminded me how awful "Attack of the Clones" truly is; not because "Sith" is a good movie, but because it was pretty much on the same level. <hl> Anyway, two stars for "Clones" may indeed be on the generous side; I will concede the two for the amazing CGI (which, simultaneously, is part of the reason why this film is so terrible). Terrible acting? Got it. Terrible directing? Gotcha. No intelligence, heart, emotion, or, well...anything else aside from CGI? Done. Lucas has really outdone himself with this film; it may even be worse than "The Matrix Reloaded" and comes darn close to matching "Terminator 3" for worst prequel/sequel ever made. The power of hype in our society is truly astounding; despite the fact that not even a labotomized twelve-year old (for whom, according to Lucas's pathetic excuse, the picture is designed (minus the labotomy, of course)) could keep their eyes open long enough to witness this spasm-inducing lethargy, it made nearly $300 mill. at the box office. Of course, the power of hype made the original "Star Wars" the biggest success of all time (inflation-adjusted, it's nearly double "Titanic"), despite the fact that that movie really isn't all that amazing either (that's another story... ).The problem with "Clones," and "Menace" and "Sith," (and even the original "Star Wars") is George Lucas. Good writer, he is (note "Indiana Jones"); good director, he is clearly not. He should have handed this series to Spielberg, but naturally his ego got in the way. Too bad, because had "Menace" been the great film it needed to be, this could have become the most popular trilogy of all time. Like the new "Matrix" and "Terminator" "films," all we can do is simply forget that these pre/sequels exist, so that we can retain some enjoyment from the originals (in regard to retaining enjoyment from the "Star Wars" series, I'm talking about episodes 5 and 6, the only two good movies of them all).A side note: the line of dialogue refering to Anakin's dislike for sand may just be the most laughable ever spoken in an American film. At least Lucas will be remembered for something...?

Actually, "<hl> Dennis the Menace" is probably the better movie, in retrospect.I just saw <hl> "Revenge of the Sith" last night, and it reminded me how awful "Attack of the Clones" truly is; not because "Sith" is a good movie, but because it was pretty much on the same level.Anyway, two stars for "Clones" may indeed be on the generous side; I will concede the two for the amazing CGI (which, simultaneously, is part of the reason why this film is so terrible). Terrible acting? Got it. Terrible directing? Gotcha. No intelligence, heart, emotion, or, well...anything else aside from CGI? Done. Lucas has really outdone himself with this film; it may even be worse than "The Matrix Reloaded" and comes darn close to matching "Terminator 3" for worst prequel/sequel ever made. The power of hype in our society is truly astounding; despite the fact that not even a labotomized twelve-year old (for whom, according to Lucas's pathetic excuse, the picture is designed (minus the labotomy, of course)) could keep their eyes open long enough to witness this spasm-inducing lethargy, it made nearly $300 mill. at the box office. Of course, the power of hype made the original "Star Wars" the biggest success of all time (inflation-adjusted, it's nearly double "Titanic"), despite the fact that that movie really isn't all that amazing either (that's another story...).The problem with "Clones," and "Menace" and "Sith," (and even the original "Star Wars") is George Lucas. Good writer, he is (note "Indiana Jones"); good director, he is clearly not. He should have handed this series to Spielberg, but naturally his ego got in the way. Too bad, because had "Menace" been the great film it needed to be, this could have become the most popular trilogy of all time. Like the new "Matrix" and "Terminator" "films," all we can do is simply forget that these pre/sequels exist, so that we can retain some enjoyment from the originals (in regard to retaining enjoyment from the "Star Wars" series, I'm talking about episodes 5 and 6, the only two good movies of them all).A side note: the line of dialogue refering to Anakin's dislike for sand may just be the most laughable ever spoken in an American film. At least Lucas will be remembered for something...?

Actually, " <hl> Dennis the Menace" is probably the better movie, in retrospect.I just saw <hl> "Revenge of the Sith" last night, and it reminded me how awful "Attack of the Clones" truly is; not because "Sith" is a good movie, but because it was pretty much on the same level.