Question: How is film?

Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad, but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation.

Answer: The film was not bad

Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. <hl> Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. <hl> This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation.

Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? <hl> The film was not bad <hl>, but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation.

Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? <hl> The film was not bad <hl> , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements.


Question: How is the image?

With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard.Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first "Matrix" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!!  At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better.  It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before.So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true.

Answer: visuals are 5-star caliber

With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard. Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first "Matrix" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before. <hl> So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true. <hl>

With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard.Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first "Matrix" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before.So....if you read that the audio and <hl> visuals are 5-star caliber <hl> - believe it; it's true.


Question: How is the character?

When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional. Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet.To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues.The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the "low-angle swoosh" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score.Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring.We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson.Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud.

Answer: he is one dimensional

When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. <hl> Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional . <hl> Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet. To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues. The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the "low-angle swoosh" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score. Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring. We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson. Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud.

When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because <hl> he is one dimensional <hl>. Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet.To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues.The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the "low-angle swoosh" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score.Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring.We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson.Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud.

Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because <hl> he is one dimensional <hl> .


Question: Do you enjoy the movie?

I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse.The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more.Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes.Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable.Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches.When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island.There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film.As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one.Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over.I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad.In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong, or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it.Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.

Answer: I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong

I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse. The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more. Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes. Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable. Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches. When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island. There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film. As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one. Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over. I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad. <hl> In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) <hl> If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it. Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.

I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse.The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more.Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes.Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable.Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches.When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island.There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film.As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one.Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over.I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad.In the end, <hl> I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong <hl>, or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it.Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.

In the end, <hl> I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong <hl> , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.)


Question: What is the plot of this movie?

I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not.Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue. The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything.This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene.With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular "character growth" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating.As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a "starring role?"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, '80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's "super-genius" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh.

Answer: Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue

I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not. Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. <hl> After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue . <hl> The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything. This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene. With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular "character growth" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating. As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a "starring role?"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, ' 80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's "super-genius" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh.

I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not.Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than <hl> Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue <hl>. The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything.This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene.With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular "character growth" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating.As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a "starring role?"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, '80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's "super-genius" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh.

After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than <hl> Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue <hl> .


Question: How did you like the main character?

What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world?  While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious.James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory.  Life seems to be going well for the buddies.  Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly.  Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles.  Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door.What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise.  Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed.Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike.  The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras.  As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested."Monsters, Inc." is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family.  The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative.  Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films.  Enjoy!

Answer: the factory

What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world? While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious. <hl> James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory . <hl> Life seems to be going well for the buddies. Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly. Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles. Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door. What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise. Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed. Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike. The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras. As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested. "Monsters, Inc." is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family. The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative. Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films. Enjoy!

What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world? While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious.James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at <hl> the factory <hl>. Life seems to be going well for the buddies. Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly. Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles. Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door.What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise. Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed.Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike. The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras. As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested."Monsters, Inc." is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family. The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative. Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films. Enjoy!

James P. "Sulley" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at <hl> the factory <hl> .


Question: What about the effect?

I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding. The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again.

Answer: I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding

<hl> I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding . <hl> The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again.

<hl> I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding <hl>. The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again.

<hl> I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding <hl> .


Question: How long did the dialogue last?

First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie.  It's funny, smart and entertaining.  The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great.  Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie.  The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking.  Watch this movie.The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't.  The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos".  Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many.  Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't.  The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many.  The extras are good, but not really great.All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience.

Answer: The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino

First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie. It's funny, smart and entertaining. <hl> The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great. <hl> Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie. The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking. Watch this movie. The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't. The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos". Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many. Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't. The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many. The extras are good, but not really great. All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience.

First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie. It's funny, smart and entertaining. <hl> The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino <hl>'s other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great. Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie. The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking. Watch this movie.The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't. The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos". Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many. Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't. The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many. The extras are good, but not really great.All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience.

<hl> The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino <hl> 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great.


Question: Why is history eternal?

The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves.  The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent, and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission.  The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl.  This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time.  The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny.  This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned.  I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time.If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase.  If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features.

Answer: The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent

The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves. <hl> The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission. <hl> The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl. This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time. The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny. This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned. I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time. If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase. If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features.

The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves. <hl> The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent <hl>, and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission. The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl. This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time. The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny. This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned. I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time.If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase. If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features.

<hl> The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent <hl> , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission.


Question: How is at times the plot in the movie?

[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers.  Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like.  The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on.  The actors at times mumble their words and the "moody" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets.  Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams.  Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk.Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on.  His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the "real" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself.  She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an "inception") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power.To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page).  Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much.  She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much.  Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed.  After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not.Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing.  The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life.  The "zero gravity" scene (my word for it) was amazing.  Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes.  The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so.  I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed.Bottom Line:  Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book!  The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle.  The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on.  The ending was fun, left a question in your mind.Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan  (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ...  CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ...  ArthurEllen Page ...  AriadneTom Hardy ...  EamesKen Watanabe ...  SaitoDileep Rao ...  YusufCillian Murphy .  Robert FischerTom Berenger ...  Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ...  MalPete Postlethwaite ...  Maurice FischerMichael Caine ...  Miles

Answer: The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on

[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers. Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like. <hl> The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on . <hl> The actors at times mumble their words and the "moody" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets. Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams. Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk. Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on. His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the "real" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself. She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an "inception") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power. To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page). Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much. She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much. Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed. After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not. Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing. The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life. The "zero gravity" scene (my word for it) was amazing. Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes. The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so. I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed. Bottom Line: Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book! The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle. The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on. The ending was fun, left a question in your mind. Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ... CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ... ArthurEllen Page ... AriadneTom Hardy ... EamesKen Watanabe ... SaitoDileep Rao ... YusufCillian Murphy . Robert FischerTom Berenger ... Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ... MalPete Postlethwaite ... Maurice FischerMichael Caine ... Miles

[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers. Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like. <hl> The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on <hl>. The actors at times mumble their words and the "moody" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets. Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams. Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk.Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on. His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the "real" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself. She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an "inception") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power.To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page). Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much. She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much. Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed. After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not.Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing. The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life. The "zero gravity" scene (my word for it) was amazing. Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes. The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so. I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed.Bottom Line: Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book! The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle. The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on. The ending was fun, left a question in your mind.Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ... CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ... ArthurEllen Page ... AriadneTom Hardy ... EamesKen Watanabe ... SaitoDileep Rao ... YusufCillian Murphy . Robert FischerTom Berenger ... Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ... MalPete Postlethwaite ... Maurice FischerMichael Caine ... Miles

<hl> The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

I have mixed feelings about this film.  It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story, really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) "romance", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity).  Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways.Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster.  It has many things that the "experts" say will kill your film.  First, it's 194 minutes long.  Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released).  Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER).  Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story).  Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns.  Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time.  The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part).  Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess).  As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable.  Winslet is superb.  One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck "lower classes", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are.  Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's.  There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down.However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit.  The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic.  I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it.  This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio.  There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts.  Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen.  James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it.  As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film.  This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic).

Answer: a genuinely tragic true story

I have mixed feelings about this film. <hl> It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) "romance", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity). <hl> Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways. Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster. It has many things that the "experts" say will kill your film. First, it's 194 minutes long. Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released). Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER). Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story). Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns. Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time. The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part). Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess). As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable. Winslet is superb. One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck "lower classes", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are. Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's. There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down. However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit. The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic. I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it. This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio. There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts. Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen. James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it. As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film. This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic).

I have mixed feelings about this film. It has great moments, <hl> a genuinely tragic true story <hl>, really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) "romance", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity). Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways.Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster. It has many things that the "experts" say will kill your film. First, it's 194 minutes long. Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released). Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER). Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story). Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns. Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time. The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part). Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess). As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable. Winslet is superb. One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck "lower classes", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are. Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's. There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down.However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit. The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic. I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it. This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio. There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts. Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen. James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it. As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film. This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic).

It has great moments, <hl> a genuinely tragic true story <hl> , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) "romance", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity).


Question: How is the quality of the movie?

this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY, so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising.

Answer: As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY

this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. <hl> As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. <hl> The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising.

this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. <hl> As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY <hl>, so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising.

<hl> As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY <hl> , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY.


Question: How was the plot of this story?

Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot, but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or "there wasn't enough sword fighting", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes.You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece.So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy.

Answer: this movie has a really weak plot

<hl> Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or "there wasn't enough sword fighting", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. <hl> This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes. You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece. So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy.

Aright, You're all right, <hl> this movie has a really weak plot <hl>, but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or "there wasn't enough sword fighting", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes.You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece.So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy.

Aright, You're all right, <hl> this movie has a really weak plot <hl> , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or "there wasn't enough sword fighting", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath.