Question: Why is our act subpar?

I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas.It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's  Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power.In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional.

Answer: transformation into Darth Vader is more like the

I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas. It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. <hl> Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog. <hl> The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power. In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional.

I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas.It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. Thus the so-called <hl> transformation into Darth Vader is more like the <hl> flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power.In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional.


Question: How is the laugh?

When the entertainment industry pokes fun at itself sincerely, the results can be hilarious.  Such is the case with the cornball science fantasy movie "Galaxy Quest.""Galaxy Quest" was a science fiction television show with more than a passing similarity to "Star Trek."  As with the latter show, "Galaxy Quest" was cancelled.  Now the dispirited actors seem doomed to an endless cycle of overzealous fans at "Galaxy Quest" conventions.  Adding to the actor's torment is the attitude of Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen), who played Commander Peter Quincy Taggart in the show.  Nesmith's cheery attitude and self-importance have worn thin on his fellow cast mates, Gwen Demarco as sexy Lt. Tawny Madison (Sigourney Weaver), Alexander Dane as brainy Dr. Lazarus (Alan Rickman), and Fred Kwan as Tech Sgt. Chen (Tony Shalhoub).Interrupting their doldrums is a group of individuals who would appear weird to anyone outside a science fiction convention.  As members of the convention they appear to be about as strange, or normal, depending on your point of view, as anyone else.  However, Jason Nesmith soon learns that this strange foursome is more than they seem as they spirit him off to their genuine spaceship, NSEA Protector.At first Jason is somewhat excited at the opportunity to be on a genuine spaceship, and eventually brings the rest of the crew, including bit part player Guy Fleegman (Sam Rockwell), back to the ship with him.  However, the aliens crewing the ship, the Thermians, have a very real, very ruthless nemesis to contend with, and the former crew of "Galaxy Quest" discover they are out of their depth.The Thermians brought the crew of "Galaxy Quest" on board because they discovered certain "historical documents" that were transmitted into space many years earlier.  The somewhat innocent, though highly intelligent and creative, Thermians were unable to recognize the television show "Galaxy Quest" as being make-believe.The movie moves forward with a number of creative and often humorous moments, alternating between hilarity and seriousness, with even a few moments of compassion.  Every cliché and stereotype from the original "Star Trek" is exploited for a laugh.  In the climax the actors rely on hardcore fans for their in-depth knowledge of the show to save them.  It is difficult to avoid enjoying the ending, even if you are not a fan of science fiction."Galaxy Quest" is an excellent companion movie to the original "Star Trek" television series.  Even non-Trek fans will pick up on most of the gags.  There is a lot of action and you can expect the usual implausibilities that tend to accompany television science fiction.  However, the results are humorous and enjoyable.  You will find this movie worth more than one watch.

Answer: the case with the cornball science fantasy movie

When the entertainment industry pokes fun at itself sincerely, the results can be hilarious. <hl> Such is the case with the cornball science fantasy movie "Galaxy Quest.""Galaxy <hl> Quest" was a science fiction television show with more than a passing similarity to "Star Trek." As with the latter show, "Galaxy Quest" was cancelled. Now the dispirited actors seem doomed to an endless cycle of overzealous fans at "Galaxy Quest" conventions. Adding to the actor's torment is the attitude of Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen), who played Commander Peter Quincy Taggart in the show. Nesmith's cheery attitude and self-importance have worn thin on his fellow cast mates, Gwen Demarco as sexy Lt. Tawny Madison (Sigourney Weaver), Alexander Dane as brainy Dr. Lazarus (Alan Rickman), and Fred Kwan as Tech Sgt. Chen (Tony Shalhoub).Interrupting their doldrums is a group of individuals who would appear weird to anyone outside a science fiction convention. As members of the convention they appear to be about as strange, or normal, depending on your point of view, as anyone else. However, Jason Nesmith soon learns that this strange foursome is more than they seem as they spirit him off to their genuine spaceship, NSEA Protector. At first Jason is somewhat excited at the opportunity to be on a genuine spaceship, and eventually brings the rest of the crew, including bit part player Guy Fleegman (Sam Rockwell), back to the ship with him. However, the aliens crewing the ship, the Thermians, have a very real, very ruthless nemesis to contend with, and the former crew of "Galaxy Quest" discover they are out of their depth. The Thermians brought the crew of "Galaxy Quest" on board because they discovered certain "historical documents" that were transmitted into space many years earlier. The somewhat innocent, though highly intelligent and creative, Thermians were unable to recognize the television show "Galaxy Quest" as being make-believe. The movie moves forward with a number of creative and often humorous moments, alternating between hilarity and seriousness, with even a few moments of compassion. Every cliché and stereotype from the original "Star Trek" is exploited for a laugh. In the climax the actors rely on hardcore fans for their in-depth knowledge of the show to save them. It is difficult to avoid enjoying the ending, even if you are not a fan of science fiction. "Galaxy Quest" is an excellent companion movie to the original "Star Trek" television series. Even non-Trek fans will pick up on most of the gags. There is a lot of action and you can expect the usual implausibilities that tend to accompany television science fiction. However, the results are humorous and enjoyable. You will find this movie worth more than one watch.

When the entertainment industry pokes fun at itself sincerely, the results can be hilarious. Such is <hl> the case with the cornball science fantasy movie <hl> "Galaxy Quest.""Galaxy Quest" was a science fiction television show with more than a passing similarity to "Star Trek." As with the latter show, "Galaxy Quest" was cancelled. Now the dispirited actors seem doomed to an endless cycle of overzealous fans at "Galaxy Quest" conventions. Adding to the actor's torment is the attitude of Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen), who played Commander Peter Quincy Taggart in the show. Nesmith's cheery attitude and self-importance have worn thin on his fellow cast mates, Gwen Demarco as sexy Lt. Tawny Madison (Sigourney Weaver), Alexander Dane as brainy Dr. Lazarus (Alan Rickman), and Fred Kwan as Tech Sgt. Chen (Tony Shalhoub).Interrupting their doldrums is a group of individuals who would appear weird to anyone outside a science fiction convention. As members of the convention they appear to be about as strange, or normal, depending on your point of view, as anyone else. However, Jason Nesmith soon learns that this strange foursome is more than they seem as they spirit him off to their genuine spaceship, NSEA Protector.At first Jason is somewhat excited at the opportunity to be on a genuine spaceship, and eventually brings the rest of the crew, including bit part player Guy Fleegman (Sam Rockwell), back to the ship with him. However, the aliens crewing the ship, the Thermians, have a very real, very ruthless nemesis to contend with, and the former crew of "Galaxy Quest" discover they are out of their depth.The Thermians brought the crew of "Galaxy Quest" on board because they discovered certain "historical documents" that were transmitted into space many years earlier. The somewhat innocent, though highly intelligent and creative, Thermians were unable to recognize the television show "Galaxy Quest" as being make-believe.The movie moves forward with a number of creative and often humorous moments, alternating between hilarity and seriousness, with even a few moments of compassion. Every cliché and stereotype from the original "Star Trek" is exploited for a laugh. In the climax the actors rely on hardcore fans for their in-depth knowledge of the show to save them. It is difficult to avoid enjoying the ending, even if you are not a fan of science fiction."Galaxy Quest" is an excellent companion movie to the original "Star Trek" television series. Even non-Trek fans will pick up on most of the gags. There is a lot of action and you can expect the usual implausibilities that tend to accompany television science fiction. However, the results are humorous and enjoyable. You will find this movie worth more than one watch.


Question: How did you like the video quality?

This review is for the blu-ray transfer only and not the film itself.  The blu-ray version of Blade Runner: Final Cut is superb.  Despite the fact that it is an older movie and shot primarily in lowlight conditions, details are sharp, colors are vibrant and blacks are deep.  While there is some film grain in certain scenes, it is soft rather than gritty.  It did not call attention to iself.  The sound was initially a little weak on my system, but I cranked it up a notch or two and then it sounded fine.  I highly recommend this blu-ray transfer.  If you are considering an upgrade from DVD, it is totally worth it.

Answer: details are sharp, colors are vibrant and blacks are deep

This review is for the blu-ray transfer only and not the film itself. The blu-ray version of Blade Runner: Final Cut is superb. <hl> Despite the fact that it is an older movie and shot primarily in lowlight conditions, details are sharp, colors are vibrant and blacks are deep . <hl> While there is some film grain in certain scenes, it is soft rather than gritty. It did not call attention to iself. The sound was initially a little weak on my system, but I cranked it up a notch or two and then it sounded fine. I highly recommend this blu-ray transfer. If you are considering an upgrade from DVD, it is totally worth it.

This review is for the blu-ray transfer only and not the film itself. The blu-ray version of Blade Runner: Final Cut is superb. Despite the fact that it is an older movie and shot primarily in lowlight conditions, <hl> details are sharp, colors are vibrant and blacks are deep <hl>. While there is some film grain in certain scenes, it is soft rather than gritty. It did not call attention to iself. The sound was initially a little weak on my system, but I cranked it up a notch or two and then it sounded fine. I highly recommend this blu-ray transfer. If you are considering an upgrade from DVD, it is totally worth it.

Despite the fact that it is an older movie and shot primarily in lowlight conditions, <hl> details are sharp, colors are vibrant and blacks are deep <hl> .


Question: What quality is the work in this movie, is it excellent?

While watching "The Ring", the last thing I wanted to do was to draw comparisons with the original Japanese "Ringu". Simply because I wanted to enjoy it as what it is, rather than a revisited English version of a same film. Unfortunately, I found comparisons to be inevitable. Not saying that "The Ring" is either superior or inferior, but it stayed very truthful to the original material it was based on, too truthful.For viewers who haven't had a chance to see "Ringu", you will find idea of "The Ring" wholly unique, nevertheless bizarre and ridiculous at the same time, depending on your cynicism level. But for those who have seen the original, you may think that the story of this US remake unfolds in an almost identical way, even though some incidents along the way were inserted or slightly altered to cater for the vaster audiences. In certain cases these alterations are actually an improvement that contributes to the mood of the story, as well as providing hints and clues of the final conclusion. In Japan, like in China and many other countries in Asia, they have long history that consists of countless mythical tales and legends about the spiritual realm, so a cursed video may seem vividly possible, while seems far-fetched and hard to swallow to the English-speaking world. But in order to retain that sense of myth, a lot of elements converted (or rather not converted) into the US version do feel quite out of place.Verbinski, while flaring some ingenious camera setups, did not tackle the subtlety a movie that is largely atmospheric requires. "The Ring" is a material which M. Night Shyamalan could probably do while he sleepwalks, and his knack for psychological thrills and minimalism style would surely be effective here. Perhaps looking at Verbinski's résumé (Mousehunt, The Mexicans), he may be too cynical for a subject that deals with a video tape that kills people. However with the limited amount of Gore (no puns intended), he did succeed in letting some genuine chills creep into the audiences at the sublimal level.Where "The Ring" did fail is, not having convincing characters. Naomi Watts serves up a decent job as a career-driven news reporter, but she did not look frightened or concerned enough for a single-mother who knows her exact time and date of death. There was no sense of emergency that she is desperate to find out how to lift the curse, instead she spends the entire time questioning who was involved in the sad story behind the video. By the end of the seventh day the audiences are left to wander off somewhere forgetting why she needs to find out about the origin of the video in the first place. Secondly the son Aidan is too creepy, and without a trace of innocence for us to really care about what will happen to him. He shares no chemistry with his mother, spending the entire time staring into the far place, drawing dark pictures, or mumbling something about a imaginary friend. In another word, he seems more like a possessed puppet than your little nephew you would like to take to the carnival. In Alejandro Amenavar's "The Others", in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", or even in the most obvious example, Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", children's straightforward manner and innocence proved to be far more effective in creating sense of peril, and in that matter, way more disturbing. Another disappointing performance is from Martin Henderson as Noah. He has great presence, but again he does not convey any chemistry with the other actors in the film. The expression he has for not believing the nonsense of a killer video is not so different from the one he knows his life could be in threat. Is he helping Rachel because he does have feelings for her, or does he just hope to get laid again because she is still hot? It was not explained, nor do we really care much.Though the number of extras on this DVD is disappointing, what it does offer is in fact quite neat. The picture is sharp and crisp, providing a good contrast of the grayish grim look of the film, with the bursting colors at times that will permanently damage your retina (in some way it actually distracts you from the mood the film is supposed to have). While the sound may not give your system a throughout workout, the localization is quite well defined, and provide a good dimension for the otherwise monotone sound effects, therefore making the few shock-tricks exceptionally powerful (needless to say the DTS track again proves to be the champion of cinema sound).An advertised "never-before-seen short film" could be seen by selecting the "Don't look here" option on the main menu. It is in fact a collection of deleted and extended scenes, featuring a few more graphic sequences trimmed from the theatrical release. Without commentary or additional information, it doesn't really reveal any more insights or secret than the film itself, but would definitely affect the rating if they were incorporated back into the film as an "uncut edition". Yet whether it would be a better viewing experience is another question. Also included is a very brief trailer of the original "Ringu" on DVD (also released by Dreamworks, surprise, surprise!), a theatrical trailer of "Catch Me If You Can", and an "8 Mile" DVD promo spot. If you are patient enough to play around with the remote a little bit more, you may find a not so pleasant easter egg! Overall "The Ring" DVD is a nice little package that will make your collection looks better...is that your phone ringing?

Answer: to the original material it was based on

While watching "The Ring", the last thing I wanted to do was to draw comparisons with the original Japanese "Ringu". Simply because I wanted to enjoy it as what it is, rather than a revisited English version of a same film. Unfortunately, I found comparisons to be inevitable. <hl> Not saying that "The Ring" is either superior or inferior, but it stayed very truthful to the original material it was based on , too truthful. <hl> For viewers who haven't had a chance to see "Ringu", you will find idea of "The Ring" wholly unique, nevertheless bizarre and ridiculous at the same time, depending on your cynicism level. But for those who have seen the original, you may think that the story of this US remake unfolds in an almost identical way, even though some incidents along the way were inserted or slightly altered to cater for the vaster audiences. In certain cases these alterations are actually an improvement that contributes to the mood of the story, as well as providing hints and clues of the final conclusion. In Japan, like in China and many other countries in Asia, they have long history that consists of countless mythical tales and legends about the spiritual realm, so a cursed video may seem vividly possible, while seems far-fetched and hard to swallow to the English-speaking world. But in order to retain that sense of myth, a lot of elements converted (or rather not converted) into the US version do feel quite out of place. Verbinski, while flaring some ingenious camera setups, did not tackle the subtlety a movie that is largely atmospheric requires. "The Ring" is a material which M. Night Shyamalan could probably do while he sleepwalks, and his knack for psychological thrills and minimalism style would surely be effective here. Perhaps looking at Verbinski's résumé (Mousehunt, The Mexicans), he may be too cynical for a subject that deals with a video tape that kills people. However with the limited amount of Gore (no puns intended), he did succeed in letting some genuine chills creep into the audiences at the sublimal level. Where "The Ring" did fail is, not having convincing characters. Naomi Watts serves up a decent job as a career-driven news reporter, but she did not look frightened or concerned enough for a single-mother who knows her exact time and date of death. There was no sense of emergency that she is desperate to find out how to lift the curse, instead she spends the entire time questioning who was involved in the sad story behind the video. By the end of the seventh day the audiences are left to wander off somewhere forgetting why she needs to find out about the origin of the video in the first place. Secondly the son Aidan is too creepy, and without a trace of innocence for us to really care about what will happen to him. He shares no chemistry with his mother, spending the entire time staring into the far place, drawing dark pictures, or mumbling something about a imaginary friend. In another word, he seems more like a possessed puppet than your little nephew you would like to take to the carnival. In Alejandro Amenavar's "The Others", in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", or even in the most obvious example, Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", children's straightforward manner and innocence proved to be far more effective in creating sense of peril, and in that matter, way more disturbing. Another disappointing performance is from Martin Henderson as Noah. He has great presence, but again he does not convey any chemistry with the other actors in the film. The expression he has for not believing the nonsense of a killer video is not so different from the one he knows his life could be in threat. Is he helping Rachel because he does have feelings for her, or does he just hope to get laid again because she is still hot? It was not explained, nor do we really care much. Though the number of extras on this DVD is disappointing, what it does offer is in fact quite neat. The picture is sharp and crisp, providing a good contrast of the grayish grim look of the film, with the bursting colors at times that will permanently damage your retina (in some way it actually distracts you from the mood the film is supposed to have). While the sound may not give your system a throughout workout, the localization is quite well defined, and provide a good dimension for the otherwise monotone sound effects, therefore making the few shock-tricks exceptionally powerful (needless to say the DTS track again proves to be the champion of cinema sound).An advertised "never-before-seen short film" could be seen by selecting the "Don't look here" option on the main menu. It is in fact a collection of deleted and extended scenes, featuring a few more graphic sequences trimmed from the theatrical release. Without commentary or additional information, it doesn't really reveal any more insights or secret than the film itself, but would definitely affect the rating if they were incorporated back into the film as an "uncut edition". Yet whether it would be a better viewing experience is another question. Also included is a very brief trailer of the original "Ringu" on DVD (also released by Dreamworks, surprise, surprise!), a theatrical trailer of "Catch Me If You Can", and an "8 Mile" DVD promo spot. If you are patient enough to play around with the remote a little bit more, you may find a not so pleasant easter egg! Overall "The Ring" DVD is a nice little package that will make your collection looks better...is that your phone ringing?

While watching "The Ring", the last thing I wanted to do was to draw comparisons with the original Japanese "Ringu". Simply because I wanted to enjoy it as what it is, rather than a revisited English version of a same film. Unfortunately, I found comparisons to be inevitable. Not saying that "The Ring" is either superior or inferior, but it stayed very truthful <hl> to the original material it was based on <hl>, too truthful.For viewers who haven't had a chance to see "Ringu", you will find idea of "The Ring" wholly unique, nevertheless bizarre and ridiculous at the same time, depending on your cynicism level. But for those who have seen the original, you may think that the story of this US remake unfolds in an almost identical way, even though some incidents along the way were inserted or slightly altered to cater for the vaster audiences. In certain cases these alterations are actually an improvement that contributes to the mood of the story, as well as providing hints and clues of the final conclusion. In Japan, like in China and many other countries in Asia, they have long history that consists of countless mythical tales and legends about the spiritual realm, so a cursed video may seem vividly possible, while seems far-fetched and hard to swallow to the English-speaking world. But in order to retain that sense of myth, a lot of elements converted (or rather not converted) into the US version do feel quite out of place.Verbinski, while flaring some ingenious camera setups, did not tackle the subtlety a movie that is largely atmospheric requires. "The Ring" is a material which M. Night Shyamalan could probably do while he sleepwalks, and his knack for psychological thrills and minimalism style would surely be effective here. Perhaps looking at Verbinski's résumé (Mousehunt, The Mexicans), he may be too cynical for a subject that deals with a video tape that kills people. However with the limited amount of Gore (no puns intended), he did succeed in letting some genuine chills creep into the audiences at the sublimal level.Where "The Ring" did fail is, not having convincing characters. Naomi Watts serves up a decent job as a career-driven news reporter, but she did not look frightened or concerned enough for a single-mother who knows her exact time and date of death. There was no sense of emergency that she is desperate to find out how to lift the curse, instead she spends the entire time questioning who was involved in the sad story behind the video. By the end of the seventh day the audiences are left to wander off somewhere forgetting why she needs to find out about the origin of the video in the first place. Secondly the son Aidan is too creepy, and without a trace of innocence for us to really care about what will happen to him. He shares no chemistry with his mother, spending the entire time staring into the far place, drawing dark pictures, or mumbling something about a imaginary friend. In another word, he seems more like a possessed puppet than your little nephew you would like to take to the carnival. In Alejandro Amenavar's "The Others", in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", or even in the most obvious example, Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", children's straightforward manner and innocence proved to be far more effective in creating sense of peril, and in that matter, way more disturbing. Another disappointing performance is from Martin Henderson as Noah. He has great presence, but again he does not convey any chemistry with the other actors in the film. The expression he has for not believing the nonsense of a killer video is not so different from the one he knows his life could be in threat. Is he helping Rachel because he does have feelings for her, or does he just hope to get laid again because she is still hot? It was not explained, nor do we really care much.Though the number of extras on this DVD is disappointing, what it does offer is in fact quite neat. The picture is sharp and crisp, providing a good contrast of the grayish grim look of the film, with the bursting colors at times that will permanently damage your retina (in some way it actually distracts you from the mood the film is supposed to have). While the sound may not give your system a throughout workout, the localization is quite well defined, and provide a good dimension for the otherwise monotone sound effects, therefore making the few shock-tricks exceptionally powerful (needless to say the DTS track again proves to be the champion of cinema sound).An advertised "never-before-seen short film" could be seen by selecting the "Don't look here" option on the main menu. It is in fact a collection of deleted and extended scenes, featuring a few more graphic sequences trimmed from the theatrical release. Without commentary or additional information, it doesn't really reveal any more insights or secret than the film itself, but would definitely affect the rating if they were incorporated back into the film as an "uncut edition". Yet whether it would be a better viewing experience is another question. Also included is a very brief trailer of the original "Ringu" on DVD (also released by Dreamworks, surprise, surprise!), a theatrical trailer of "Catch Me If You Can", and an "8 Mile" DVD promo spot. If you are patient enough to play around with the remote a little bit more, you may find a not so pleasant easter egg! Overall "The Ring" DVD is a nice little package that will make your collection looks better...is that your phone ringing?

Not saying that "The Ring" is either superior or inferior, but it stayed very truthful <hl> to the original material it was based on <hl> , too truthful.


Question: Is your relationship very interesting?

"Master and Commander" is a film of great integrity. It follows through on its promises, commits its characters to both the heroics and the sins of their natures, has the courage of its convictions and portrays nobility of spirit without maudlin sentiment. In short, it is a wonderful balancing act. The fact that it has intelligent plotting, literate dialogue, classical themes, inspired acting and is both well paced and superbly filmed only adds to its many virtues.Intelligent restraint is in evidence throughout this film. Peter Weir shows restraint in his decision to let the story tell itself. Both Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany show restraint in their superb understated acting. Together, they are like a thinking person's Gene Rodenberry, Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy. Think of these archetypes stripped of their overacting and most egregious tendencies and you will have some idea of the qualities conveyed by the three principals in this film.The plot and setting have been well summarized in other reviews, but those are poor reasons to view a film such as "Master and Commander". It is really a film about timeless qualities now hopelessly out of fashion: things like duty, honour, loyalty, friendship, mutual reliance and the questing spirit. Cynics will hate this film for its proud and unapologetic portrayal of old fashioned values. The rest of us will not only love it, but find it inspirational.I am both hopeful and apprehensive of a sequel. On the one hand, I look forward to further adaptations of Peter O'Brien's work. On the other hand, this first adaptation has set such a high standard that I fear the next film making a complete hash of things.

Answer: It is really a film about timeless qualities now hopelessly out of fashion: things like duty, honour, loyalty, friendship, mutual

"Master and Commander" is a film of great integrity. It follows through on its promises, commits its characters to both the heroics and the sins of their natures, has the courage of its convictions and portrays nobility of spirit without maudlin sentiment. In short, it is a wonderful balancing act. The fact that it has intelligent plotting, literate dialogue, classical themes, inspired acting and is both well paced and superbly filmed only adds to its many virtues. Intelligent restraint is in evidence throughout this film. Peter Weir shows restraint in his decision to let the story tell itself. Both Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany show restraint in their superb understated acting. Together, they are like a thinking person's Gene Rodenberry, Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy. Think of these archetypes stripped of their overacting and most egregious tendencies and you will have some idea of the qualities conveyed by the three principals in this film. The plot and setting have been well summarized in other reviews, but those are poor reasons to view a film such as "Master and Commander". <hl> It is really a film about timeless qualities now hopelessly out of fashion: things like duty, honour, loyalty, friendship, mutual reliance and the questing spirit. <hl> Cynics will hate this film for its proud and unapologetic portrayal of old fashioned values. The rest of us will not only love it, but find it inspirational. I am both hopeful and apprehensive of a sequel. On the one hand, I look forward to further adaptations of Peter O'Brien's work. On the other hand, this first adaptation has set such a high standard that I fear the next film making a complete hash of things.

"Master and Commander" is a film of great integrity. It follows through on its promises, commits its characters to both the heroics and the sins of their natures, has the courage of its convictions and portrays nobility of spirit without maudlin sentiment. In short, it is a wonderful balancing act. The fact that it has intelligent plotting, literate dialogue, classical themes, inspired acting and is both well paced and superbly filmed only adds to its many virtues.Intelligent restraint is in evidence throughout this film. Peter Weir shows restraint in his decision to let the story tell itself. Both Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany show restraint in their superb understated acting. Together, they are like a thinking person's Gene Rodenberry, Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy. Think of these archetypes stripped of their overacting and most egregious tendencies and you will have some idea of the qualities conveyed by the three principals in this film.The plot and setting have been well summarized in other reviews, but those are poor reasons to view a film such as "Master and Commander". <hl> It is really a film about timeless qualities now hopelessly out of fashion: things like duty, honour, loyalty, friendship, mutual <hl> reliance and the questing spirit. Cynics will hate this film for its proud and unapologetic portrayal of old fashioned values. The rest of us will not only love it, but find it inspirational.I am both hopeful and apprehensive of a sequel. On the one hand, I look forward to further adaptations of Peter O'Brien's work. On the other hand, this first adaptation has set such a high standard that I fear the next film making a complete hash of things.


Question: Is the costume not beautiful?

I'll review the movie in a moment. What I want to share first is how pleasantly surprised I am at the extras included. Sure, they could have given us more--four different kinds of trailers, costume design boards, a scene from every Phantom movie thus far, interviews with Crawford and Brightman, not to mention commentaries. But hey, isn't that what Christmas is for? :)However, I was enthralled by the story of how the musical came to be. We get not only plenty of airtime from Lord Webber and Stilgoe & Hart, but we see the original stars in footage that we would never be able to see otherwise. Sara Brightman singing "Pie Jesu" in what looks to be a cathedral, Michael Crawford doing light comedy--light comedy!--on a British show and performing in the circus. We're taken into Webber's estate to view the singers who first performed the Phantom material as it was being constructed, and are enlightened as to how Britain charmingly previewed the musical, via music video, to the rest of the nation as what looked to be, quite literally, a rock opera. (Well, it WAS the 80s.)The other extras that focus on the movie production are also quite good. I thought it might be only a slightly longer version of one of those HBO First Looks, but it was super-informative. In it you get a look at the premier, at part of Emmy Rossum's screen test, the fun of trying to understand Jennifer Ellison's (Meg) accent, Patrick Wilson singing opera in sport pants, the Mask of the Red Death swigging from a water bottle, plus a look at the outrageously elaborate costumes and what the chandelier falling looked like in real life. There's so much more I can't remember, but trust me, it's worth it.I'm not sure sure about the additional scene. I'm glad they didn't keep it in. While it's a lovely song, the Phantom was too soft, not at all obsessive or dangerous. And we don't want that, now, do we?And, about that movie. Emmy Rossum has a perfectly capable voice even at her age, just as Christine is supposed to be quite young. But her face had the same expression on it--trancelike--almost the entire time. When she saw Raoul caught in the Punjab lasso and cried out, I was like, Finally! And then she went back into the trance. I wish they had coaxed more expression out of her.Gerard Butler. Either you love him or you hate him. We all know he's hot. I was really surprised at first sight of the Phantom, because from the stage shows you get the impression that even with the mask on, he's a crowish figure of no less than forty years. I enjoy watching Butler, but if they had used someone less attractive I don't think it would have taken anything away from the movie. As for his voice--I whispered to my mom at one point that he sounds like a rock star. And yes, Butler was indeed in a rock band. He's no Michael Crawford. And sometimes his treatment of phrases isn't the best. But on the flip side, sometimes it's just as uncomfortable listening to a stage Phantom sing in full-on operatic mode. It's...whatever you like, I guess.Of course, the sets are lavish and the costumes lush (and vice versa). I love Minnie Driver in the Carlotta role, and the men who played the managers were really a delight. I know people gripe about all these different things--the addition of scenes, speaking dialogue that was previously sung, the misplacement of the chandelier's big scene, a colorful masquerade being clothed in black and white. But in the end I still think the movie is more than worth it. Why?Because you can see it whenever you want to now. Because the full orchestra sounds heaven-sent. Because knowing all the words to a musical is a big deal. Because it's beautiful. Because it's a full-on experience that requires nothing less than your full attention. Because snow and confetti falling never looked so perfect. Because my first exposure to the musical was on a cassette tape with half the second act missing and it was still so potent that I stayed up to listen to it again. Because the Phantom's hot (oops).So, that's what I think. If you truly love the musical, you'll like the movie. If you knew nothing of the musical before, then you'll probably like it, too.

Answer: the outrageously elaborate costumes

I'll review the movie in a moment. What I want to share first is how pleasantly surprised I am at the extras included. Sure, they could have given us more--four different kinds of trailers, costume design boards, a scene from every Phantom movie thus far, interviews with Crawford and Brightman, not to mention commentaries. But hey, isn't that what Christmas is for? :) However, I was enthralled by the story of how the musical came to be. We get not only plenty of airtime from Lord Webber and Stilgoe & Hart, but we see the original stars in footage that we would never be able to see otherwise. Sara Brightman singing "Pie Jesu" in what looks to be a cathedral, Michael Crawford doing light comedy--light comedy!--on a British show and performing in the circus. We're taken into Webber's estate to view the singers who first performed the Phantom material as it was being constructed, and are enlightened as to how Britain charmingly previewed the musical, via music video, to the rest of the nation as what looked to be, quite literally, a rock opera. (Well, it WAS the 80s.)The other extras that focus on the movie production are also quite good. I thought it might be only a slightly longer version of one of those HBO First Looks, but it was super-informative. <hl> In it you get a look at the premier, at part of Emmy Rossum's screen test, the fun of trying to understand Jennifer Ellison's (Meg) accent, Patrick Wilson singing opera in sport pants, the Mask of the Red Death swigging from a water bottle, plus a look at the outrageously elaborate costumes and what the chandelier falling looked like in real life. <hl> There's so much more I can't remember, but trust me, it's worth it. I'm not sure sure about the additional scene. I'm glad they didn't keep it in. While it's a lovely song, the Phantom was too soft, not at all obsessive or dangerous. And we don't want that, now, do we?And, about that movie. Emmy Rossum has a perfectly capable voice even at her age, just as Christine is supposed to be quite young. But her face had the same expression on it--trancelike--almost the entire time. When she saw Raoul caught in the Punjab lasso and cried out, I was like, Finally! And then she went back into the trance. I wish they had coaxed more expression out of her. Gerard Butler. Either you love him or you hate him. We all know he's hot. I was really surprised at first sight of the Phantom, because from the stage shows you get the impression that even with the mask on, he's a crowish figure of no less than forty years. I enjoy watching Butler, but if they had used someone less attractive I don't think it would have taken anything away from the movie. As for his voice--I whispered to my mom at one point that he sounds like a rock star. And yes, Butler was indeed in a rock band. He's no Michael Crawford. And sometimes his treatment of phrases isn't the best. But on the flip side, sometimes it's just as uncomfortable listening to a stage Phantom sing in full-on operatic mode. It's... whatever you like, I guess. Of course, the sets are lavish and the costumes lush (and vice versa). I love Minnie Driver in the Carlotta role, and the men who played the managers were really a delight. I know people gripe about all these different things--the addition of scenes, speaking dialogue that was previously sung, the misplacement of the chandelier's big scene, a colorful masquerade being clothed in black and white. But in the end I still think the movie is more than worth it. Why?Because you can see it whenever you want to now. Because the full orchestra sounds heaven-sent. Because knowing all the words to a musical is a big deal. Because it's beautiful. Because it's a full-on experience that requires nothing less than your full attention. Because snow and confetti falling never looked so perfect. Because my first exposure to the musical was on a cassette tape with half the second act missing and it was still so potent that I stayed up to listen to it again. Because the Phantom's hot (oops).So, that's what I think. If you truly love the musical, you'll like the movie. If you knew nothing of the musical before, then you'll probably like it, too.

I'll review the movie in a moment. What I want to share first is how pleasantly surprised I am at the extras included. Sure, they could have given us more--four different kinds of trailers, costume design boards, a scene from every Phantom movie thus far, interviews with Crawford and Brightman, not to mention commentaries. But hey, isn't that what Christmas is for? :)However, I was enthralled by the story of how the musical came to be. We get not only plenty of airtime from Lord Webber and Stilgoe & Hart, but we see the original stars in footage that we would never be able to see otherwise. Sara Brightman singing "Pie Jesu" in what looks to be a cathedral, Michael Crawford doing light comedy--light comedy!--on a British show and performing in the circus. We're taken into Webber's estate to view the singers who first performed the Phantom material as it was being constructed, and are enlightened as to how Britain charmingly previewed the musical, via music video, to the rest of the nation as what looked to be, quite literally, a rock opera. (Well, it WAS the 80s.)The other extras that focus on the movie production are also quite good. I thought it might be only a slightly longer version of one of those HBO First Looks, but it was super-informative. In it you get a look at the premier, at part of Emmy Rossum's screen test, the fun of trying to understand Jennifer Ellison's (Meg) accent, Patrick Wilson singing opera in sport pants, the Mask of the Red Death swigging from a water bottle, plus a look at <hl> the outrageously elaborate costumes <hl> and what the chandelier falling looked like in real life. There's so much more I can't remember, but trust me, it's worth it.I'm not sure sure about the additional scene. I'm glad they didn't keep it in. While it's a lovely song, the Phantom was too soft, not at all obsessive or dangerous. And we don't want that, now, do we?And, about that movie. Emmy Rossum has a perfectly capable voice even at her age, just as Christine is supposed to be quite young. But her face had the same expression on it--trancelike--almost the entire time. When she saw Raoul caught in the Punjab lasso and cried out, I was like, Finally! And then she went back into the trance. I wish they had coaxed more expression out of her.Gerard Butler. Either you love him or you hate him. We all know he's hot. I was really surprised at first sight of the Phantom, because from the stage shows you get the impression that even with the mask on, he's a crowish figure of no less than forty years. I enjoy watching Butler, but if they had used someone less attractive I don't think it would have taken anything away from the movie. As for his voice--I whispered to my mom at one point that he sounds like a rock star. And yes, Butler was indeed in a rock band. He's no Michael Crawford. And sometimes his treatment of phrases isn't the best. But on the flip side, sometimes it's just as uncomfortable listening to a stage Phantom sing in full-on operatic mode. It's...whatever you like, I guess.Of course, the sets are lavish and the costumes lush (and vice versa). I love Minnie Driver in the Carlotta role, and the men who played the managers were really a delight. I know people gripe about all these different things--the addition of scenes, speaking dialogue that was previously sung, the misplacement of the chandelier's big scene, a colorful masquerade being clothed in black and white. But in the end I still think the movie is more than worth it. Why?Because you can see it whenever you want to now. Because the full orchestra sounds heaven-sent. Because knowing all the words to a musical is a big deal. Because it's beautiful. Because it's a full-on experience that requires nothing less than your full attention. Because snow and confetti falling never looked so perfect. Because my first exposure to the musical was on a cassette tape with half the second act missing and it was still so potent that I stayed up to listen to it again. Because the Phantom's hot (oops).So, that's what I think. If you truly love the musical, you'll like the movie. If you knew nothing of the musical before, then you'll probably like it, too.


Question: How is act?

I bought the extended version of "Gladiator" on DVD, although I already have the widescreen signature edition and I never regretted it. Many of the deleted scenes those which I already knew from the signature edition and some additional ones were added. This additional footage is an absolute gain for the overall brilliant story line. There is also new bonus material on the second and third disc. All the documentaries provide an interesting insight into the making of the film."Gladiator" is on second position among my all time favorite movies. The cast is outstanding. Russell Crowe's performance is absolutely brilliant. Connie Nielson, Oliver Reed and Joaquin Phoenix are also perfectly chosen for their roles and too give a great performance, just to name a few. I have watched "Gladiator" countless times. After each viewing I could just watch it all over again. It's a masterpiece of its genre with the most magnificent and brilliant special effects I have ever seen. There are so many scenes which are pure joy to watch. The dialog and the score are pure "ear-candy". I am not a fan of Roman or Greek empire movies, but "Gladiator" is different from all the other old and new films about this period. There is something special in "Gladiator", something I have never seen before. Just as Maximus (Russell Crowe) says in the movie: "I'll give them something they have never seen before".

Answer: Russell Crowe's performance is absolutely brilliant

I bought the extended version of "Gladiator" on DVD, although I already have the widescreen signature edition and I never regretted it. Many of the deleted scenes those which I already knew from the signature edition and some additional ones were added. This additional footage is an absolute gain for the overall brilliant story line. There is also new bonus material on the second and third disc. All the documentaries provide an interesting insight into the making of the film. "Gladiator" is on second position among my all time favorite movies. The cast is outstanding. <hl> Russell Crowe's performance is absolutely brilliant . <hl> Connie Nielson, Oliver Reed and Joaquin Phoenix are also perfectly chosen for their roles and too give a great performance, just to name a few. I have watched "Gladiator" countless times. After each viewing I could just watch it all over again. It's a masterpiece of its genre with the most magnificent and brilliant special effects I have ever seen. There are so many scenes which are pure joy to watch. The dialog and the score are pure "ear-candy". I am not a fan of Roman or Greek empire movies, but "Gladiator" is different from all the other old and new films about this period. There is something special in "Gladiator", something I have never seen before. Just as Maximus (Russell Crowe) says in the movie: "I'll give them something they have never seen before".

I bought the extended version of "Gladiator" on DVD, although I already have the widescreen signature edition and I never regretted it. Many of the deleted scenes those which I already knew from the signature edition and some additional ones were added. This additional footage is an absolute gain for the overall brilliant story line. There is also new bonus material on the second and third disc. All the documentaries provide an interesting insight into the making of the film."Gladiator" is on second position among my all time favorite movies. The cast is outstanding. <hl> Russell Crowe's performance is absolutely brilliant <hl>. Connie Nielson, Oliver Reed and Joaquin Phoenix are also perfectly chosen for their roles and too give a great performance, just to name a few. I have watched "Gladiator" countless times. After each viewing I could just watch it all over again. It's a masterpiece of its genre with the most magnificent and brilliant special effects I have ever seen. There are so many scenes which are pure joy to watch. The dialog and the score are pure "ear-candy". I am not a fan of Roman or Greek empire movies, but "Gladiator" is different from all the other old and new films about this period. There is something special in "Gladiator", something I have never seen before. Just as Maximus (Russell Crowe) says in the movie: "I'll give them something they have never seen before".

<hl> Russell Crowe's performance is absolutely brilliant <hl> .


Question: What is your moment that you remembed?

Well, here we go again.  Tobey Maguire spins the web again.  While I feel the Spiderman films of today are strictly for the teenagers, I am a Spiderman fan from way back.  The comic books of the 1970's, the cartoons and "The Amazing Spider-Man" tv series  with Nicholas Hammond as Peter Parker/Spider-Man.  Spiderman still holds my interest.Now they got Spiderman delivering pizzas.  Peter Parker is shown more human and clumsy in the film.  Even has a heart.  His stronger side will be tested again by a new villain, Dr. Octavius (Alfred Molina).  To make matters worse, Peter occasionally keeps losing his spidey powers in mid-flight and Dr. Octavius has four metal tentacles to deal with.Most of the cast fromSpider-Man (Widescreen Special Edition)(2002) return for this film, including Cliff Robertson as "Uncle Ben".  Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell have cameo appearances.The film is more enjoyable if you fast-forward through the scenes with Kirsten Dunst.Disc One includes two audio commentaries (cast & crew, technical), webisodes, the music video "Ordinary" by Train, Blooper Reel, previews, and a cool feature "Spidey Sense 2" in which you turn on and you will get Factoids and trivia during the film.Disc Two includes making of..Featurettes. "Enter The Web" shows you different angles of a particular scene.Easter Egg: Disc Two, Gallery Screen, Press up twice.  If you see the Spiderman sense, press Enter.  You will get Alfred Molina doing "If I Were a Rich Man".Followed by:Spider-Man 3 (Widescreen Edition)(2007).The Amazing Spider-Man(2012)The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro (2014).The Amazing Spider-Man 3 will be released on June 10, 2016.The Amazing Spider-Man 4 (2018).

Answer: am a Spiderman fan from way back

I am a Spiderman fan from way back .

Well, here we go again. Tobey Maguire spins the web again. While I feel the Spiderman films of today are strictly for the teenagers, <hl> I am a Spiderman fan from way back . <hl> The comic books of the 1970's, the cartoons and "The Amazing Spider-Man" tv series with Nicholas Hammond as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Spiderman still holds my interest. Now they got Spiderman delivering pizzas. Peter Parker is shown more human and clumsy in the film. Even has a heart. His stronger side will be tested again by a new villain, Dr. Octavius (Alfred Molina). To make matters worse, Peter occasionally keeps losing his spidey powers in mid-flight and Dr. Octavius has four metal tentacles to deal with. Most of the cast fromSpider-Man (Widescreen Special Edition)(2002) return for this film, including Cliff Robertson as "Uncle Ben". Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell have cameo appearances. The film is more enjoyable if you fast-forward through the scenes with Kirsten Dunst. Disc One includes two audio commentaries (cast & crew, technical), webisodes, the music video "Ordinary" by Train, Blooper Reel, previews, and a cool feature "Spidey Sense 2" in which you turn on and you will get Factoids and trivia during the film. Disc Two includes making of..Featurettes. "Enter The Web" shows you different angles of a particular scene. Easter Egg: Disc Two, Gallery Screen, Press up twice. If you see the Spiderman sense, press Enter. You will get Alfred Molina doing "If I Were a Rich Man". Followed by:Spider-Man 3 (Widescreen Edition)(2007).The Amazing Spider-Man(2012)The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro (2014).The Amazing Spider-Man 3 will be released on June 10, 2016.The Amazing Spider-Man 4 (2018).

Well, here we go again. Tobey Maguire spins the web again. While I feel the Spiderman films of today are strictly for the teenagers, I <hl> am a Spiderman fan from way back <hl>. The comic books of the 1970's, the cartoons and "The Amazing Spider-Man" tv series with Nicholas Hammond as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Spiderman still holds my interest.Now they got Spiderman delivering pizzas. Peter Parker is shown more human and clumsy in the film. Even has a heart. His stronger side will be tested again by a new villain, Dr. Octavius (Alfred Molina). To make matters worse, Peter occasionally keeps losing his spidey powers in mid-flight and Dr. Octavius has four metal tentacles to deal with.Most of the cast fromSpider-Man (Widescreen Special Edition)(2002) return for this film, including Cliff Robertson as "Uncle Ben". Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell have cameo appearances.The film is more enjoyable if you fast-forward through the scenes with Kirsten Dunst.Disc One includes two audio commentaries (cast & crew, technical), webisodes, the music video "Ordinary" by Train, Blooper Reel, previews, and a cool feature "Spidey Sense 2" in which you turn on and you will get Factoids and trivia during the film.Disc Two includes making of..Featurettes. "Enter The Web" shows you different angles of a particular scene.Easter Egg: Disc Two, Gallery Screen, Press up twice. If you see the Spiderman sense, press Enter. You will get Alfred Molina doing "If I Were a Rich Man".Followed by:Spider-Man 3 (Widescreen Edition)(2007).The Amazing Spider-Man(2012)The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro (2014).The Amazing Spider-Man 3 will be released on June 10, 2016.The Amazing Spider-Man 4 (2018).

I <hl> am a Spiderman fan from way back <hl> .


Question: Can I enjoy new funny jokes with my family?

Seriously. Just watch Hangover (the original) again. This movie is not funny at all. I love most of the people in the cast, but it was a definite let-down.

Answer: This movie is not funny at all

This movie is not funny at all .

Seriously. Just watch Hangover (the original) again. <hl> This movie is not funny at all . <hl> I love most of the people in the cast, but it was a definite let-down.

Seriously. Just watch Hangover (the original) again. <hl> This movie is not funny at all <hl>. I love most of the people in the cast, but it was a definite let-down.

<hl> This movie is not funny at all <hl> .


Question: How amazing was the end?

I went to see this in the theaters the opening weekend on Haloween this past fall. I'd have to say that this movie is false advertising. Haloween movies have always been cheesy and bloody and thats how I like them. I was expecting this kind of urban horror movie with all sorts of nasty violence/blood and a decent plot. Dont get me wrong- I'm not a sick f***, but sometimes thats the kind of movie i wanna see. This was a serious dissapointment. "Saw" tried to pack way too much plot into 100 mins running time, confusing the hell out of me. The ending was absolutely awesome, it makes the experience not so empty and wasted.  If your looking for a gorefest, this aint it. Sure, it got an R in US 18A in Canada, but there's other horror movies at your local store that surpass this easily.If your looking for a movie to make you think, this aint it either. Confusing the viewer doesnt lead to thinking IMO.All in all, not what it tried to be or could have been. I honestly cant recommend this.

Answer: The ending was absolutely awesome

I went to see this in the theaters the opening weekend on Haloween this past fall. I'd have to say that this movie is false advertising. Haloween movies have always been cheesy and bloody and thats how I like them. I was expecting this kind of urban horror movie with all sorts of nasty violence/blood and a decent plot. Dont get me wrong- I'm not a sick f***, but sometimes thats the kind of movie i wanna see. This was a serious dissapointment. "Saw" tried to pack way too much plot into 100 mins running time, confusing the hell out of me. <hl> The ending was absolutely awesome , it makes the experience not so empty and wasted. <hl> If your looking for a gorefest, this aint it. Sure, it got an R in US 18A in Canada, but there's other horror movies at your local store that surpass this easily. If your looking for a movie to make you think, this aint it either. Confusing the viewer doesnt lead to thinking IMO.All in all, not what it tried to be or could have been. I honestly cant recommend this.

I went to see this in the theaters the opening weekend on Haloween this past fall. I'd have to say that this movie is false advertising. Haloween movies have always been cheesy and bloody and thats how I like them. I was expecting this kind of urban horror movie with all sorts of nasty violence/blood and a decent plot. Dont get me wrong- I'm not a sick f***, but sometimes thats the kind of movie i wanna see. This was a serious dissapointment. "Saw" tried to pack way too much plot into 100 mins running time, confusing the hell out of me. <hl> The ending was absolutely awesome <hl>, it makes the experience not so empty and wasted. If your looking for a gorefest, this aint it. Sure, it got an R in US 18A in Canada, but there's other horror movies at your local store that surpass this easily.If your looking for a movie to make you think, this aint it either. Confusing the viewer doesnt lead to thinking IMO.All in all, not what it tried to be or could have been. I honestly cant recommend this.

<hl> The ending was absolutely awesome <hl> , it makes the experience not so empty and wasted.


Question: How is the moment?

Ok, so all these people are saying the film isn't funny. They're saying it's stupid has no intelligence....Well jeeze the stupid person is you! This movie is classified under Stupid funny humor. IT's not trying to be annie hall or anything. This movie is showing off Will Ferrells comedic talent. IT has a lot of funny lines. IT is random but yet...it's supposed to be. Two thumbs up. It's a lot of fun.

Answer: the film isn't funny

<hl> Ok, so all these people are saying the film isn't funny . <hl> They're saying it's stupid has no intelligence.... Well jeeze the stupid person is you! This movie is classified under Stupid funny humor. IT's not trying to be annie hall or anything. This movie is showing off Will Ferrells comedic talent. IT has a lot of funny lines. IT is random but yet... it's supposed to be. Two thumbs up. It's a lot of fun.

Ok, so all these people are saying <hl> the film isn't funny <hl>. They're saying it's stupid has no intelligence....Well jeeze the stupid person is you! This movie is classified under Stupid funny humor. IT's not trying to be annie hall or anything. This movie is showing off Will Ferrells comedic talent. IT has a lot of funny lines. IT is random but yet...it's supposed to be. Two thumbs up. It's a lot of fun.

Ok, so all these people are saying <hl> the film isn't funny <hl> .


Question: What is the end?

Dale Denton (Rogan) is a process server and a stoner.  He has a girlfriend in high school (Heard), and likes to hang out with his dealer, Saul (Franco).  One evening, Dale witnesses a murder.  The murderers, a drug lord (Cole) and a crooked cop (Perez) are soon on his tail.  They trace a joint left behind at the scene, a variety called "Pineapple Express" back to Saul, and soon Dale and Saul are running for their lives."Pineapple Express" is yet another film from the Judd Apatow machine, and on par with "Superbad."  Rogen and Franco have good chemistry and comic timing.  Franco is more at home in dramas, but is genuinely funny here.  Despite being a "stoner movie", it is a buddy movie at heart.  Action is not what you would expect from Rogen, and although he handles it well, especially in the last 30 minutes, the action packed ending does run a bit long.  Overall, "Pineapple Express" delivers what it promises: a funny stoner comedy.

Answer: the action packed ending does run a bit long.

Dale Denton (Rogan) is a process server and a stoner. He has a girlfriend in high school (Heard), and likes to hang out with his dealer, Saul (Franco). One evening, Dale witnesses a murder. The murderers, a drug lord (Cole) and a crooked cop (Perez) are soon on his tail. They trace a joint left behind at the scene, a variety called "Pineapple Express" back to Saul, and soon Dale and Saul are running for their lives. "Pineapple Express" is yet another film from the Judd Apatow machine, and on par with "Superbad." Rogen and Franco have good chemistry and comic timing. Franco is more at home in dramas, but is genuinely funny here. Despite being a "stoner movie", it is a buddy movie at heart. <hl> Action is not what you would expect from Rogen, and although he handles it well, especially in the last 30 minutes, the action packed ending does run a bit long. Overall, "Pineapple Express" delivers what it promises: a funny stoner comedy. <hl>

Dale Denton (Rogan) is a process server and a stoner. He has a girlfriend in high school (Heard), and likes to hang out with his dealer, Saul (Franco). One evening, Dale witnesses a murder. The murderers, a drug lord (Cole) and a crooked cop (Perez) are soon on his tail. They trace a joint left behind at the scene, a variety called "Pineapple Express" back to Saul, and soon Dale and Saul are running for their lives."Pineapple Express" is yet another film from the Judd Apatow machine, and on par with "Superbad." Rogen and Franco have good chemistry and comic timing. Franco is more at home in dramas, but is genuinely funny here. Despite being a "stoner movie", it is a buddy movie at heart. Action is not what you would expect from Rogen, and although he handles it well, especially in the last 30 minutes, <hl> the action packed ending does run a bit long. <hl> Overall, "Pineapple Express" delivers what it promises: a funny stoner comedy.


Question: How good is the costume?

This series I bought from Amazon, but seasons 2 and 3 I have actually seen on TV.  As it turned out, in my opinion (because the series has ended now) it was a down played spin off of "THE TUDORS".  I'm not particularly into the Renaissance, but the history of the Catholic Church during that time does intrigue me.I have tried not to compare it to THE TUDORS, but I didn't succeed there.  Like THE TUDORS the actors and actresses were all first rate, excellent actors and actresses. Jeremy Irons is a living legend and the most known of the cast. Colm Fiore is an excellent actor, and the rest of the cast was no less radiant.  The sets and costumes were spectacular without a doubt.But unlike THE TUDORS, THE BORGIAS series still lacked "something".  I want to say that it didn't have quite the same sexual tension and intrigue that THE TUDORS had.  And, I want to say that the cast of THE TUDORS was just a "little bit better".  JRM almost "over acts" as Henry 8th, but his sex appeal and magnetism makes that series. And quite frankly, THE TUDORS was in no short supply of beautiful people.The only thing that made me uncomfortable was the season ending.  I won't mention exactly what made me uncomfortable because I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't yet seen the whole thing, but I will say, I felt that the series ended rather quickly and abruptly.  Over all though, it was a very fine series.

Answer: costumes were spectacular without a doubt

This series I bought from Amazon, but seasons 2 and 3 I have actually seen on TV. As it turned out, in my opinion (because the series has ended now) it was a down played spin off of "THE TUDORS". I'm not particularly into the Renaissance, but the history of the Catholic Church during that time does intrigue me. I have tried not to compare it to THE TUDORS, but I didn't succeed there. Like THE TUDORS the actors and actresses were all first rate, excellent actors and actresses. Jeremy Irons is a living legend and the most known of the cast. Colm Fiore is an excellent actor, and the rest of the cast was no less radiant. <hl> The sets and costumes were spectacular without a doubt .But unlike THE TUDORS, THE BORGIAS series still lacked "something". <hl> I want to say that it didn't have quite the same sexual tension and intrigue that THE TUDORS had. And, I want to say that the cast of THE TUDORS was just a "little bit better". JRM almost "over acts" as Henry 8th, but his sex appeal and magnetism makes that series. And quite frankly, THE TUDORS was in no short supply of beautiful people. The only thing that made me uncomfortable was the season ending. I won't mention exactly what made me uncomfortable because I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't yet seen the whole thing, but I will say, I felt that the series ended rather quickly and abruptly. Over all though, it was a very fine series.

This series I bought from Amazon, but seasons 2 and 3 I have actually seen on TV. As it turned out, in my opinion (because the series has ended now) it was a down played spin off of "THE TUDORS". I'm not particularly into the Renaissance, but the history of the Catholic Church during that time does intrigue me.I have tried not to compare it to THE TUDORS, but I didn't succeed there. Like THE TUDORS the actors and actresses were all first rate, excellent actors and actresses. Jeremy Irons is a living legend and the most known of the cast. Colm Fiore is an excellent actor, and the rest of the cast was no less radiant. The sets and <hl> costumes were spectacular without a doubt <hl>.But unlike THE TUDORS, THE BORGIAS series still lacked "something". I want to say that it didn't have quite the same sexual tension and intrigue that THE TUDORS had. And, I want to say that the cast of THE TUDORS was just a "little bit better". JRM almost "over acts" as Henry 8th, but his sex appeal and magnetism makes that series. And quite frankly, THE TUDORS was in no short supply of beautiful people.The only thing that made me uncomfortable was the season ending. I won't mention exactly what made me uncomfortable because I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't yet seen the whole thing, but I will say, I felt that the series ended rather quickly and abruptly. Over all though, it was a very fine series.

The sets and <hl> costumes were spectacular without a doubt <hl> .But unlike THE TUDORS, THE BORGIAS series still lacked "something".


Question: How is the quality of the performance?

The third installment is much better and more memorable than the first two films. It's tough adapting an excellent book into an excellent film. Things are left out and new things are put in. The first two films left me wondering why more wasn't cut out of them to make for better movie viewing. It was like they were trying to cram as much of the book in as possible, resulting in drawn out stories. In stark contrast, this Potter film moves along at a pace I can stand, isn't as long (great for the attention span of children), is better written, directed, and played out.The three young actors (Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson) have finally come into their own and look like they know what their doing. Radcliffe (Harry Potter) gives his best performance yet, and I'm sure we'll see even more growth in the coming movies.In this installment, we learn that Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and is after Harry Potter. That's the shortest version of the plot (there's more to it, but I don't want to be too long-winded), and I don't want to reveal too much more for the sake of those who may not have the read the book.Fanatics of the book may not appreciate that some of the book was left out, but if the entire book was adapted to film, the movie would be 10 hours long. For the sake of entertainment purposes, I'm glad director Cuaron took the edgy route. He gives us an excellent film, the best Potter film yet. Even the vision of Harry Potter is different. I thought this film had a better  feel for the book, even if it left stuff out.I've seen it twice, once in a regular theater and once in an IMAX. If you can get to an IMAX to see this one, I highly recommend it. What an awesome experience. Either way, I highly highly recommend this movie. It's absolutely breathtaking.

Answer: cram as much of the book in as possible

The third installment is much better and more memorable than the first two films. It's tough adapting an excellent book into an excellent film. Things are left out and new things are put in. The first two films left me wondering why more wasn't cut out of them to make for better movie viewing. <hl> It was like they were trying to cram as much of the book in as possible , resulting in drawn out stories. <hl> In stark contrast, this Potter film moves along at a pace I can stand, isn't as long (great for the attention span of children), is better written, directed, and played out. The three young actors (Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson) have finally come into their own and look like they know what their doing. Radcliffe (Harry Potter) gives his best performance yet, and I'm sure we'll see even more growth in the coming movies. In this installment, we learn that Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and is after Harry Potter. That's the shortest version of the plot (there's more to it, but I don't want to be too long-winded), and I don't want to reveal too much more for the sake of those who may not have the read the book. Fanatics of the book may not appreciate that some of the book was left out, but if the entire book was adapted to film, the movie would be 10 hours long. For the sake of entertainment purposes, I'm glad director Cuaron took the edgy route. He gives us an excellent film, the best Potter film yet. Even the vision of Harry Potter is different. I thought this film had a better feel for the book, even if it left stuff out. I've seen it twice, once in a regular theater and once in an IMAX. If you can get to an IMAX to see this one, I highly recommend it. What an awesome experience. Either way, I highly highly recommend this movie. It's absolutely breathtaking.

The third installment is much better and more memorable than the first two films. It's tough adapting an excellent book into an excellent film. Things are left out and new things are put in. The first two films left me wondering why more wasn't cut out of them to make for better movie viewing. It was like they were trying to <hl> cram as much of the book in as possible <hl>, resulting in drawn out stories. In stark contrast, this Potter film moves along at a pace I can stand, isn't as long (great for the attention span of children), is better written, directed, and played out.The three young actors (Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson) have finally come into their own and look like they know what their doing. Radcliffe (Harry Potter) gives his best performance yet, and I'm sure we'll see even more growth in the coming movies.In this installment, we learn that Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban Prison and is after Harry Potter. That's the shortest version of the plot (there's more to it, but I don't want to be too long-winded), and I don't want to reveal too much more for the sake of those who may not have the read the book.Fanatics of the book may not appreciate that some of the book was left out, but if the entire book was adapted to film, the movie would be 10 hours long. For the sake of entertainment purposes, I'm glad director Cuaron took the edgy route. He gives us an excellent film, the best Potter film yet. Even the vision of Harry Potter is different. I thought this film had a better feel for the book, even if it left stuff out.I've seen it twice, once in a regular theater and once in an IMAX. If you can get to an IMAX to see this one, I highly recommend it. What an awesome experience. Either way, I highly highly recommend this movie. It's absolutely breathtaking.

It was like they were trying to <hl> cram as much of the book in as possible <hl> , resulting in drawn out stories.


Question: How is the laugh?

A very good DVD production of the movie. The "Lost in Space" feature was interesting although short. The deleted scenes are very funny and I think a lot of them should have been retained in the first cut. The  deleted scenes also help explain some of the incongruities, such as why  Sigourney Weaver suddenly is showing a lot of cleavage toward the end of  the film.

Answer: The deleted scenes are very funny

A very good DVD production of the movie. The "Lost in Space" feature was interesting although short. <hl> The deleted scenes are very funny and I think a lot of them should have been retained in the first cut. <hl> The deleted scenes also help explain some of the incongruities, such as why Sigourney Weaver suddenly is showing a lot of cleavage toward the end of the film.

A very good DVD production of the movie. The "Lost in Space" feature was interesting although short. <hl> The deleted scenes are very funny <hl> and I think a lot of them should have been retained in the first cut. The deleted scenes also help explain some of the incongruities, such as why Sigourney Weaver suddenly is showing a lot of cleavage toward the end of the film.


Question: How is the book?

Reads the books, and the movie did not disappoint. I was extremely skeptical at first, not wanting to get sucked into a fad, but the books and movie(s) are genuinely good, with great actors and superb visual effects. Definitely recommend.

Answer: are genuinely good, with great actors and superb visual effects. Definitely recommend.

Reads the books, and the movie did not disappoint. <hl> I was extremely skeptical at first, not wanting to get sucked into a fad, but the books and movie(s) are genuinely good, with great actors and superb visual effects. Definitely recommend. <hl>

Reads the books, and the movie did not disappoint. I was extremely skeptical at first, not wanting to get sucked into a fad, but the books and movie(s) <hl> are genuinely good, with great actors and superb visual effects. Definitely recommend. <hl>


Question: How is the time?

This is one of the cutest, funniest sports/girl power/rousing comedy films I have seen in a while!  For starters, it is laugh-out-loud funny, and definitely holds your attention.  I think it was really geared at young teenagers and pre-teens, but I saw it with my mother, and I was twenty years old at the time and we still had fun.  Jess (Parminder Nagra) just wants to play soccer, but her traditional, Indian parents won't hear of it.  They want her to go to college, become a lawyer and be a good Indian wife--let's not forget the cooking lessons her mom wants to subject her to, so she can cook all the curries, breads and assorted fried pastries.  The young Indian-English girl won't hear of it, and while her sister is preparing for her own wedding, the headstrong girl continues to sneak out and play soccer with the guys.  Another young lady (Keira Knightley) sees her playing, and invites her to join a girl's team.  They both proceed to develop crushes on the coach (Jonathan Rhys Myers), and then things get a little complicated......to say the least....also, the whole soccer matter can't be kept under wraps forever.Even though I was never any good at soccer, and don't know much about the game (though, I knew who David Beckham was and that he played for Manchester United at the time that the film came out.......there is even a scene with Jess watching David--or, as her mom likes to call him, "That skinhead boy," play his "corner"), I had great fun watching Jess triumph in game after game, and enjoyed the Indian flavor that generously sprinkled out this film like fine haldi (tumeric, for those who know it by its Western name) in a savory and spicy curry, meant to be enjoyed with friends and loved ones.  Please give this one a go..........Also, encourage any young women and girls to watch it.  It is definitely an inspirational film for women of all ages, though.

Answer: the cutest

<hl> This is one of the cutest , funniest sports/girl power/rousing comedy films I have seen in a while! <hl> For starters, it is laugh-out-loud funny, and definitely holds your attention. I think it was really geared at young teenagers and pre-teens, but I saw it with my mother, and I was twenty years old at the time and we still had fun. Jess (Parminder Nagra) just wants to play soccer, but her traditional, Indian parents won't hear of it. They want her to go to college, become a lawyer and be a good Indian wife--let's not forget the cooking lessons her mom wants to subject her to, so she can cook all the curries, breads and assorted fried pastries. The young Indian-English girl won't hear of it, and while her sister is preparing for her own wedding, the headstrong girl continues to sneak out and play soccer with the guys. Another young lady (Keira Knightley) sees her playing, and invites her to join a girl's team. They both proceed to develop crushes on the coach (Jonathan Rhys Myers), and then things get a little complicated......to say the least....also, the whole soccer matter can't be kept under wraps forever. Even though I was never any good at soccer, and don't know much about the game (though, I knew who David Beckham was and that he played for Manchester United at the time that the film came out.......there is even a scene with Jess watching David--or, as her mom likes to call him, "That skinhead boy," play his "corner"), I had great fun watching Jess triumph in game after game, and enjoyed the Indian flavor that generously sprinkled out this film like fine haldi (tumeric, for those who know it by its Western name) in a savory and spicy curry, meant to be enjoyed with friends and loved ones. Please give this one a go.......... Also, encourage any young women and girls to watch it. It is definitely an inspirational film for women of all ages, though.

This is one of <hl> the cutest <hl>, funniest sports/girl power/rousing comedy films I have seen in a while! For starters, it is laugh-out-loud funny, and definitely holds your attention. I think it was really geared at young teenagers and pre-teens, but I saw it with my mother, and I was twenty years old at the time and we still had fun. Jess (Parminder Nagra) just wants to play soccer, but her traditional, Indian parents won't hear of it. They want her to go to college, become a lawyer and be a good Indian wife--let's not forget the cooking lessons her mom wants to subject her to, so she can cook all the curries, breads and assorted fried pastries. The young Indian-English girl won't hear of it, and while her sister is preparing for her own wedding, the headstrong girl continues to sneak out and play soccer with the guys. Another young lady (Keira Knightley) sees her playing, and invites her to join a girl's team. They both proceed to develop crushes on the coach (Jonathan Rhys Myers), and then things get a little complicated......to say the least....also, the whole soccer matter can't be kept under wraps forever.Even though I was never any good at soccer, and don't know much about the game (though, I knew who David Beckham was and that he played for Manchester United at the time that the film came out.......there is even a scene with Jess watching David--or, as her mom likes to call him, "That skinhead boy," play his "corner"), I had great fun watching Jess triumph in game after game, and enjoyed the Indian flavor that generously sprinkled out this film like fine haldi (tumeric, for those who know it by its Western name) in a savory and spicy curry, meant to be enjoyed with friends and loved ones. Please give this one a go..........Also, encourage any young women and girls to watch it. It is definitely an inspirational film for women of all ages, though.

This is one of <hl> the cutest <hl> , funniest sports/girl power/rousing comedy films I have seen in a while!


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

I know this the most successful animated movie to date. The animation is elegant and beautiful. The music is wonderful. The story is sadly lame and contrived. I really did not connect with the characters in Frozen the way I did with, for example, Ariel or Belle. Enough said.

Answer: The story is sadly lame and contrived

The story is sadly lame and contrived .

I know this the most successful animated movie to date. The animation is elegant and beautiful. The music is wonderful. <hl> The story is sadly lame and contrived . <hl> I really did not connect with the characters in Frozen the way I did with, for example, Ariel or Belle. Enough said.

I know this the most successful animated movie to date. The animation is elegant and beautiful. The music is wonderful. <hl> The story is sadly lame and contrived <hl>. I really did not connect with the characters in Frozen the way I did with, for example, Ariel or Belle. Enough said.

<hl> The story is sadly lame and contrived <hl> .


Question: How is the script?

FARGO is a modern classic of cinema.  Period.  One of the things that I enjoy most about the Coen brothers' movies is that they both understand their art form: movies are primarily visual works of art.  Many films forget this fact.  While the plot of FARGO is, in many ways, simple and somewhat predictable, the cinematography is amazing.  The blanket white landscapes that the Coen brothers paint gives the film the elegance of a black & white film with the beauty of a work in color.  The white makes the colors "pop" on the screen.FARGO introduces us to another one of William H. Macy's masterful performances.  He plays the perfect Everyman, someone who is absolutely despicable and, yet, manages to win our sympathy.  It is perfect because we see a glimmer of something in his sad existence that reminds us of our own.  He has been pushed around all of his life and one gets the feeling that the world would little remember him if he just fell off the face of the earth.  In a surprising act of agency, he hatches a scheme to accomplish two goals: to gouge his father-in-law for a lot of money (a man whom he has never earned respect) and to gain the necessary funds to fuel a business plan of his own.  The plot is simple: hire two men to kidnap his wife, collect the ransom money from his father-in-law, and give the henchman a fraction of the ransom in exchange for his wife back.  But in FARGO, as in life, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.  One thing after another goes wrong and the body count rises.In the end, FARGO is about following normal, everyday characters (the type William H. Macy was born to play) and placing them in ordinary (yet, at the same time, extraordinary) circumstances and seeing how the haphazardness of life plays with them.  Watch this film.  It is unforgettable.

Answer: movies are primarily visual works of art

FARGO is a modern classic of cinema. Period. <hl> One of the things that I enjoy most about the Coen brothers' movies is that they both understand their art form: movies are primarily visual works of art . <hl> Many films forget this fact. While the plot of FARGO is, in many ways, simple and somewhat predictable, the cinematography is amazing. The blanket white landscapes that the Coen brothers paint gives the film the elegance of a black & white film with the beauty of a work in color. The white makes the colors "pop" on the screen. FARGO introduces us to another one of William H. Macy's masterful performances. He plays the perfect Everyman, someone who is absolutely despicable and, yet, manages to win our sympathy. It is perfect because we see a glimmer of something in his sad existence that reminds us of our own. He has been pushed around all of his life and one gets the feeling that the world would little remember him if he just fell off the face of the earth. In a surprising act of agency, he hatches a scheme to accomplish two goals: to gouge his father-in-law for a lot of money (a man whom he has never earned respect) and to gain the necessary funds to fuel a business plan of his own. The plot is simple: hire two men to kidnap his wife, collect the ransom money from his father-in-law, and give the henchman a fraction of the ransom in exchange for his wife back. But in FARGO, as in life, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. One thing after another goes wrong and the body count rises. In the end, FARGO is about following normal, everyday characters (the type William H. Macy was born to play) and placing them in ordinary (yet, at the same time, extraordinary) circumstances and seeing how the haphazardness of life plays with them. Watch this film. It is unforgettable.

FARGO is a modern classic of cinema. Period. One of the things that I enjoy most about the Coen brothers' movies is that they both understand their art form: <hl> movies are primarily visual works of art <hl>. Many films forget this fact. While the plot of FARGO is, in many ways, simple and somewhat predictable, the cinematography is amazing. The blanket white landscapes that the Coen brothers paint gives the film the elegance of a black & white film with the beauty of a work in color. The white makes the colors "pop" on the screen.FARGO introduces us to another one of William H. Macy's masterful performances. He plays the perfect Everyman, someone who is absolutely despicable and, yet, manages to win our sympathy. It is perfect because we see a glimmer of something in his sad existence that reminds us of our own. He has been pushed around all of his life and one gets the feeling that the world would little remember him if he just fell off the face of the earth. In a surprising act of agency, he hatches a scheme to accomplish two goals: to gouge his father-in-law for a lot of money (a man whom he has never earned respect) and to gain the necessary funds to fuel a business plan of his own. The plot is simple: hire two men to kidnap his wife, collect the ransom money from his father-in-law, and give the henchman a fraction of the ransom in exchange for his wife back. But in FARGO, as in life, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. One thing after another goes wrong and the body count rises.In the end, FARGO is about following normal, everyday characters (the type William H. Macy was born to play) and placing them in ordinary (yet, at the same time, extraordinary) circumstances and seeing how the haphazardness of life plays with them. Watch this film. It is unforgettable.

One of the things that I enjoy most about the Coen brothers' movies is that they both understand their art form: <hl> movies are primarily visual works of art <hl> .