Question: How is the picture?

First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from.We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur.This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer.The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it.This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout.The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars.  Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like.All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it.Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic. Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race.While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom.Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative.

Answer: most perfect image

First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from. We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur. This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer. The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it. This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout. The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars. Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like. All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it. Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. <hl> A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic. <hl> Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race. While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom. Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative.

First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from.We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur.This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer.The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it.This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout.The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars. Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like.All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it.Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the <hl> most perfect image <hl> you going to see of this classic epic. Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race.While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom.Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative.


Question: How was its effect?

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

Answer: It is definitely a disappointment

It is definitely a disappointment .

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. <hl> It is definitely a disappointment . <hl> On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like "Flash Gordon" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo ("Bene Gesserit," "Maud'Dib," "Kwisatz Haderach") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. <hl> It is definitely a disappointment <hl>. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the "extended version," with the theatrical cut on side A and the "Alan Smithee" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.

<hl> It is definitely a disappointment <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family."A History of Violence", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year.The best and most convincing thing about "History" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the "Lord of the Ring" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello ("Secret Window", "The Cooler") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah.Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters.As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old "friend" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either.But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts.The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting.As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family.Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love.Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out.There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship.The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways."A History of Violence" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it.

Answer: story on the heroic

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. <hl> Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. <hl> These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family. "A History of Violence", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year. The best and most convincing thing about "History" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the "Lord of the Ring" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello ("Secret Window", "The Cooler") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah. Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters. As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old "friend" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either. But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts. The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting. As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family. Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love. Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out. There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship. The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways. "A History of Violence" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a <hl> story on the heroic <hl> event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family."A History of Violence", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year.The best and most convincing thing about "History" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the "Lord of the Ring" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello ("Secret Window", "The Cooler") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah.Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters.As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old "friend" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either.But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts.The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting.As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family.Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love.Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out.There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship.The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways."A History of Violence" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it.


Question: How is bonus feature?

Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever.Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding.As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered. It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray.Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended.Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011)

Answer: Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered

Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever. Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding. As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. <hl> You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered . <hl> It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray. Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended. Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011)

Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever.Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding.As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. You also have some games and the Classic DVD <hl> Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered <hl>. It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray.Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended.Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011)

You also have some games and the Classic DVD <hl> Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered <hl> .


Question: Does it have a single feature?

This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but  for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win  or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of  us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That  is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this  film and repeated viewings are almost required.The DVD has some great  features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the  film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool  stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be  purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this  edition. Highly Recommended!

Answer: Highly Recommended

Highly Recommended !

This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this film and repeated viewings are almost required. The DVD has some great features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this edition. <hl> Highly Recommended ! <hl>

This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this film and repeated viewings are almost required.The DVD has some great features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this edition. <hl> Highly Recommended <hl>!


Question: What is your opinion about cinematography of this film?

I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it.  I didn't even know it was based on a video game.  I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.  The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style.  The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world.  Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film.  Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.

Answer: the cinematography was fantastic

I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. <hl> I thought the cinematography was fantastic , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. <hl> The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.

I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought <hl> the cinematography was fantastic <hl>, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in "High Art", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another "Silent Hill", the script leaves more to the imagination.

I thought <hl> the cinematography was fantastic <hl> , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.


Question: How is the movie?

If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: "it could have been so much better".For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books. Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses.That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them.

Answer: This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books

If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: "it could have been so much better". For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). <hl> This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books . <hl> Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses. That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them.

If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: "it could have been so much better".For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). <hl> This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books <hl>. Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses.That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them.

<hl> This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books <hl> .


Question: How is the show?

A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show.  Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent.  All the episodes are funny.  Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens).  All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

Answer: funny show

<hl> A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show . <hl> Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

A great (albeit short) first season of a very <hl> funny show <hl>. Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are "Hell is Other Robots" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), "A Flight to Remember"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and "When Aliens Attack" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.

A great (albeit short) first season of a very <hl> funny show <hl> .


Question: What is your opinion of the series?

It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years.

Answer: It's too bad

<hl> It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. <hl> This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years.

<hl> It's too bad <hl> so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years.


Question: Where is your dvd?

I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed.The DVD itself is pretty good. Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD.

Answer: The DVD itself is pretty good

The DVD itself is pretty good .

I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed. <hl> The DVD itself is pretty good . <hl> Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD.

I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed.<hl> The DVD itself is pretty good <hl>. Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD.

<hl> The DVD itself is pretty good <hl> .


Question: How was your memory?

After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business.  WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close.  The whole idea is ingenius!  Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons.  Brilliant!  And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are.  The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action.  You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless?  Well, you ain't seen nothing yet.  You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible.  But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are).  No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it!  The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling.  Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name.  But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy!  And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen.  A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT.  While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras.  It is the same with this one.  Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release).  The sound quality is fine, however.  The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard.  Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion:  If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films!  I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise.  If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine.

Answer: long as you don't get

After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close. The whole idea is ingenius! Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons. Brilliant! And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are. The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action. You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible. But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are). No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it! The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling. Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name. But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy! And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen. A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT. While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras. It is the same with this one. Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release). The sound quality is fine, however. The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard. Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion: If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films! I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise. <hl> If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine. <hl>

After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close. The whole idea is ingenius! Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons. Brilliant! And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are. The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action. You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible. But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are). No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it! The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling. Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name. But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy! And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen. A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT. While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras. It is the same with this one. Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release). The sound quality is fine, however. The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard. Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion: If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films! I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise. If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as <hl> long as you don't get <hl> you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine.


Question: Is that film good?

Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while.In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general.

Answer: the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general.

Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while. <hl> In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. <hl>

Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while.In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that <hl> the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. <hl>


Question: Is that film good?

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

Answer: The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist. The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion. <hl> The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being. <hl> William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.<hl> The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones <hl>, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.

<hl> The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones <hl> , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.


Question: What is the today premise?

This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. The film is a mix of the films 'Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man'. The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's "spider sense" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end.

Answer: Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man'

This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. <hl> The film is a mix of the films ' Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' . <hl> The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's "spider sense" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end.

This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. The film is a mix of the films '<hl> Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' <hl>. The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's "spider sense" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end.

The film is a mix of the films ' <hl> Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' <hl> .


Question: How much real was the film?

This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment.The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid. The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed.The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had.If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while.

Answer: This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia

This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment. The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. <hl> This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid. <hl> The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed. The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had. If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while.

This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment.The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. <hl> This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia <hl> General Adid. The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed.The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had.If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while.


Question: How is the quality?

No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved.The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box.I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky.Recommended.

Answer: Recommended

Recommended .

No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved. The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box. I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky. <hl> Recommended . <hl>

No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved.The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box.I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky.<hl> Recommended <hl>.