Question: How was color?

Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding. Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film.The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release.The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together.Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job.The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton.The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow.

Answer: quality

Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. <hl> The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding. <hl> Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film. The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release. The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together. Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job. The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton. The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow.

Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. The picture and sound <hl> quality <hl> is truly outstanding. Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film.The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release.The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together.Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job.The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton.The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow.


Question: How was animation quality on this film?

This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic. At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes.

Answer: The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic

This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. <hl> The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic . <hl> At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes.

This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. <hl> The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic <hl>. At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes.

<hl> The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic <hl> .


Question: What is one?

Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed.  Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction.Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer).  The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter.  (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.)  It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL.  It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple.  It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film.What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors.  (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around.  You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.)  Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out.  Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise.  For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene.  There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat.MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series.  It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected).  Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be.  It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise.  If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE.

Answer: Ethan Hunt

<hl> Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed. <hl> Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction. Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer). The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter. (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.) It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL. It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple. It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film. What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors. (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around. You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.) Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out. Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise. For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene. There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat. MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series. It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected). Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be. It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise. If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE.

<hl> Ethan Hunt <hl> is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed. Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction.Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer). The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter. (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.) It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL. It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple. It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film.What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors. (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around. You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.) Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out. Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise. For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene. There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat.MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series. It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected). Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be. It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise. If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE.


Question: How can I control the tension so that it is not high?

I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed.The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers.I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction.I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie.I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter.I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought "the kids" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles.My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these "kids",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is.Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing...He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these "kids" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character.Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user.Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: "Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!" (-:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned.  As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the "kids",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, "Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him.He is locked out of their lives...Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing.Not cool, I felt. )-:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was...but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars**

Answer: -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension

I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed. The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers. I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction. I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie. I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter. I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought "the kids" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles. My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these "kids",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is. Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing... He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these "kids" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character. Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user. Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: "Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!" <hl> ( -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned. <hl> As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the "kids",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, "Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him. He is locked out of their lives... Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing. Not cool, I felt. ) -:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was... but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars**

I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed.The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers.I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction.I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie.I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter.I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought "the kids" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles.My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these "kids",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is.Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing...He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these "kids" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character.Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user.Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: "Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!" (<hl> -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension <hl>,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned. As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the "kids",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, "Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him.He is locked out of their lives...Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing.Not cool, I felt. )-:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was...but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars**

( <hl> -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension <hl> ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned.


Question: How was the film?

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of  the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical  score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march  from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet  seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film.

Answer: The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of  the sword in the stone

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. <hl> The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone . <hl> It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film.

There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. <hl> The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone <hl>. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film.

<hl> The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone <hl> .


Question: Does this movie have a lot of action?

If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever.This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences.The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic, as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot.Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level.

Answer: The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic

If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever. This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences. <hl> The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. <hl> The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot. Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level.

If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever.This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences.<hl> The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic <hl>, as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot.Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level.

<hl> The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic <hl> , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts.


Question: Why are character strong?

Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed.  Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved.  I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects.  Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved.

Answer: Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved

Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed. <hl> Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved . <hl> I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects. Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved.

Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed. <hl> Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved <hl>. I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects. Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved.

<hl> Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved <hl> .


Question: Is th plot of this film interesting?

It has a few moments. As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a "stud" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most).

Answer: It has a few moments

It has a few moments .

<hl> It has a few moments . <hl> As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a "stud" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most).

<hl> It has a few moments <hl>. As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a "stud" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most).


Question: How did you like the music?

The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette,  heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining.

Answer: I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining

The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette, heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. <hl> I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining . <hl>

The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette, heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. <hl> I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining <hl>.

<hl> I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining <hl> .


Question: How is the film?

Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. Theoriginal storyreads painfully, is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: "Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that." Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable.I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot.The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version.But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film.  But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations.When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed.I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable.Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of "let's remake `The Omega Man'". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance.This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap.

Answer: Theoriginal storyreads painfully

Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. <hl> Theoriginal storyreads painfully , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown. <hl> It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: "Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that." Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable. I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot. The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version. But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film. But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations. When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed. I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable. Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of "let's remake `The Omega Man'". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance. This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap.

Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. <hl> Theoriginal storyreads painfully <hl>, is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: "Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that." Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable.I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot.The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version.But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film. But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations.When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed.I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable.Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of "let's remake `The Omega Man'". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance.This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap.

<hl> Theoriginal storyreads painfully <hl> , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.


Question: How is the character?

I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly.Firefly is worth buying and watching.  It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire ("the alliance").  The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog.  How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work?  I'm not sure exactly, but it does work.  Kudos to Joss Whedon.  Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done.However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy.  I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying "(speaks in Chinese)".  And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level.Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure.  His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character.  There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play.Lastly, there is not much season arc.  Each episode story stands (quite well) alone.  This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed.In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely.  It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...]

Answer: Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure.  His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character

I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly. Firefly is worth buying and watching. It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire ("the alliance"). The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog. How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work? I'm not sure exactly, but it does work. Kudos to Joss Whedon. Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done. However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy. I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying "(speaks in Chinese)". And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level. <hl> Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character . <hl> There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play. Lastly, there is not much season arc. Each episode story stands (quite well) alone. This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed. In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely. It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...]

I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly.Firefly is worth buying and watching. It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire ("the alliance"). The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog. How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work? I'm not sure exactly, but it does work. Kudos to Joss Whedon. Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done.However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy. I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying "(speaks in Chinese)". And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level.<hl> Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character <hl>. There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play.Lastly, there is not much season arc. Each episode story stands (quite well) alone. This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed.In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely. It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...]

<hl> Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character <hl> .


Question: What is your opinion of the movie?

One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here.  We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention.  Why does it get our attention?  Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters.  Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive.Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays.  These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind.  Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some.  The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time.  Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves.  The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene.  The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field.The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room.  AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice...I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack.  Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel.Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan.  These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release.  I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year.  Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the "original" theatrical version.  These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD.  I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films.  Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended.

Answer: I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films

One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here. We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention. Why does it get our attention? Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters. Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive. Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays. These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind. Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some. The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time. Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves. The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene. The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field. The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room. AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice... I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack. Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel. Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan. These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year. Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the "original" theatrical version. These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD. <hl> I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films . <hl> Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended.

One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here. We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention. Why does it get our attention? Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters. Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive.Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays. These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind. Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some. The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time. Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves. The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene. The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field.The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room. AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice...I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack. Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel.Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan. These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year. Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the "original" theatrical version. These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD. <hl> I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films <hl>. Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended.

<hl> I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films <hl> .


Question: Are the characters full?

In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie.  When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself.Happily, I was wrong.This film kept me giggling from start to finish.  The characters were funny and real throughout.  Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch...well...he was just weird enough to be interesting.

Answer: The characters were funny and real throughout

In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself. Happily, I was wrong. This film kept me giggling from start to finish. <hl> The characters were funny and real throughout . <hl> Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch... well...he was just weird enough to be interesting.

In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself.Happily, I was wrong.This film kept me giggling from start to finish. <hl> The characters were funny and real throughout <hl>. Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch...well...he was just weird enough to be interesting.

<hl> The characters were funny and real throughout <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

I approached this film with some reservations.  In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order("Batman and Robin", anyone?).  To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment.  Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen.  The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling.  Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character.  Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul.  The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine.  This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event.  Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar?  For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce?  Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality.  The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts.  The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver.  All around, an enjoyable show.

Answer: the story is consistently enthralling

I approached this film with some reservations. In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order("Batman and Robin", anyone?). To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment. Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen. <hl> The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling . <hl> Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character. Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul. The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine. This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event. Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar? For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce? Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality. The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts. The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver. All around, an enjoyable show.

I approached this film with some reservations. In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order("Batman and Robin", anyone?). To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment. Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen. The songs are fantastic and <hl> the story is consistently enthralling <hl>. Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character. Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul. The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine. This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event. Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar? For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce? Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality. The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts. The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver. All around, an enjoyable show.

The songs are fantastic and <hl> the story is consistently enthralling <hl> .


Question: Do you have adorable characters?

Disney's new animation film "Wreck-It Ralph" follows the story of Ralph, a "villain" of an arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero.To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been "working" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very "violent"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game "Sugar Rush."The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions.The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now "out of work"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. "Wreck-It Ralph" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable.

Answer: with credible character interactions

Disney's new animation film "Wreck-It Ralph" follows the story of Ralph, a "villain" of an arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero. To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been "working" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very "violent"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game "Sugar Rush. "The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. <hl> The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. <hl> There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now "out of work"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. "Wreck-It Ralph" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable.

Disney's new animation film "Wreck-It Ralph" follows the story of Ralph, a "villain" of an arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero.To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been "working" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very "violent"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game "Sugar Rush."The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, <hl> with credible character interactions <hl>.The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now "out of work"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. "Wreck-It Ralph" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable.

The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, <hl> with credible character interactions <hl> .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us.


Question: How is the music?

If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... (Oh, and the music is really very good. A lot like a Broadway show.)

Answer: the music is really very good

If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... <hl> (Oh, and the music is really very good . <hl> A lot like a Broadway show.)

If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... (Oh, and <hl> the music is really very good <hl>. A lot like a Broadway show.)

(Oh, and <hl> the music is really very good <hl> .


Question: How adorable son the characters in the video?

What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together?  Ok, that can be a terrible offering.  Sure.  In this case, it works REALLY well.The story makes sense.  The characters are all charming.  The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny.The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE.  You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together.  Well-done.  Their personalities make you laugh.And of course the visuals are excellent.  The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you.  There is a lot to look at in some scenes.Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch.  Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me.BUY IT.

Answer: The characters are all charming

The characters are all charming .

What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together? Ok, that can be a terrible offering. Sure. In this case, it works REALLY well. The story makes sense. <hl> The characters are all charming . <hl> The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny. The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE. You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together. Well-done. Their personalities make you laugh. And of course the visuals are excellent. The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you. There is a lot to look at in some scenes. Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch. Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me. BUY IT.

What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together? Ok, that can be a terrible offering. Sure. In this case, it works REALLY well.The story makes sense. <hl> The characters are all charming <hl>. The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny.The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE. You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together. Well-done. Their personalities make you laugh.And of course the visuals are excellent. The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you. There is a lot to look at in some scenes.Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch. Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me.BUY IT.

<hl> The characters are all charming <hl> .


Question: How are commentary?

If you have yet to even see "Clerks" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for?  You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever!  "Clerks" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante.  Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly.  His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school.  Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner.  Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day.  And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around.  Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy.  Of course, its not like "Clerks" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you.  Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter!  "Clerks" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal.  There was the little seen yet entreating "Clerks" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more.  Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much.  "Clerks", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to.  The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending.  The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made, some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way.  A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever.

Answer: The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made

If you have yet to even see "Clerks" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for? You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever! "Clerks" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante. Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly. His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school. Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner. Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day. And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around. Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy. Of course, its not like "Clerks" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you. Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter! "Clerks" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal. There was the little seen yet entreating "Clerks" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more. Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much. "Clerks", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to. The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending. <hl> The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way. <hl> A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever.

If you have yet to even see "Clerks" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for? You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever! "Clerks" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante. Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly. His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school. Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner. Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day. And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around. Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy. Of course, its not like "Clerks" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you. Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter! "Clerks" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal. There was the little seen yet entreating "Clerks" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more. Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much. "Clerks", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to. The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending. <hl> The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made <hl>, some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way. A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever.

<hl> The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made <hl> , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way.


Question: How do you rate the picture quality?

if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. but sound and picture quality is great!!

Answer: picture quality is great

if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. <hl> but sound and picture quality is great !! <hl>

if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. but sound and <hl> picture quality is great <hl>!!

but sound and <hl> picture quality is great <hl> !!


Question: How is the quality of movie?

This movie is super cute and has such a great message, a must have for people of all ages!  .

Answer: This movie is super cute and has such a great message

<hl> This movie is super cute and has such a great message , a must have for people of all ages! . <hl>

<hl> This movie is super cute and has such a great message <hl>, a must have for people of all ages! .

<hl> This movie is super cute and has such a great message <hl> , a must have for people of all ages! .