Question: How was animation quality on this film?

Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape.The animation in this film was stunning. At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching.The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon.Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children.

Answer: The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape

Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. <hl> The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape .The animation in this film was stunning. <hl> At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching. The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon. Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children.

Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. <hl> The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape <hl>.The animation in this film was stunning. At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching.The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon.Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children.

<hl> The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape <hl> .The animation in this film was stunning.


Question: How is the picture?

I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent.Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since.Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before...The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time.There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too....As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films.In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary.Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd.I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv. All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees...Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now.

Answer: The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great

I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent. Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since. Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before... The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time. There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too.... As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films. In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary. Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd. I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. <hl> The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv. <hl> All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees... Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now.

I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent.Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since.Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before...The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time.There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too....As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films.In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary.Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd.I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. <hl> The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great <hl> on a widescreen tv. All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees...Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now.


Question: How is the movie?

This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of "Roman Coliseum" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot.  This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned.  If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once.

Answer: This movie is a dystopian view of our world

<hl> This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of "Roman Coliseum" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot. <hl> This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned. If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once.

<hl> This movie is a dystopian view of our world <hl> in which teenagers are served up as a kind of "Roman Coliseum" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot. This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned. If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once.


Question: How is the tone?

This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. The production is good, and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. I enjoyed the extended version.

Answer: production is good

This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. <hl> The production is good , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. <hl> I enjoyed the extended version.

This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. The <hl> production is good <hl>, and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. I enjoyed the extended version.

The <hl> production is good <hl> , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books.


Question: How is the movie?

Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. "The Pursuit Of Happyness" (ironically "Happiness" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the "F" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch. Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended.

Answer: was an awesome movie to watch

Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. <hl> "The Pursuit Of Happyness" (ironically "Happiness" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the "F" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch . <hl> Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended.

Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. "The Pursuit Of Happyness" (ironically "Happiness" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the "F" word was spelled correctly) <hl> was an awesome movie to watch <hl>. Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended.

"The Pursuit Of Happyness" (ironically "Happiness" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the "F" word was spelled correctly) <hl> was an awesome movie to watch <hl> .


Question: What is the series like?

This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when  mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

Answer: This series is great

<hl> This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. <hl> The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl>, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl> , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.


Question: Is it a good animation?

You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp.  The Mad Hatter,  Willy Wonka.  Jack Sparrow.  Ed Wood.  Barnabas Collins.  Tonto.  Sweeney Todd.  Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp?  Maybe Meryl Streep.Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list.  RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney!  It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains--Jake the Rattlesnake.RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt.  Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition.While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good:  Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant.RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination.  A sequel?  Hmmm...

Answer: one of animation's vilest villains

You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp. The Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka. Jack Sparrow. Ed Wood. Barnabas Collins. Tonto. Sweeney Todd. Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp? Maybe Meryl Streep. Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list. RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney! <hl> It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains --Jake the Rattlesnake. <hl> RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt. Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition. While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good: Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant. RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination. A sequel? Hmmm...

You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp. The Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka. Jack Sparrow. Ed Wood. Barnabas Collins. Tonto. Sweeney Todd. Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp? Maybe Meryl Streep.Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list. RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney! It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at <hl> one of animation's vilest villains <hl>--Jake the Rattlesnake.RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt. Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition.While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good: Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant.RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination. A sequel? Hmmm...

It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at <hl> one of animation's vilest villains <hl> --Jake the Rattlesnake.


Question: How is the quality of the collection?

Answer: I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good

<hl> I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good <hl>

<hl> I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good <hl> thank you very much it was good


Question: Where can I print a movie?

This is another in the "Midnite Movies" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine.However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident.After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world.He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him.Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence.Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead.The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die.Earth one,aliens nothing.Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie.Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is.It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster.Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet.Journey puts the "bad" into the B-movie.It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn.Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location.The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them.They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested.Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet.They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way.Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship.A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave.Outside is waiting one of the captain's "mirage" women and for some reason he takes her aboard.All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the "mirage" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day "Journey to the 7th Planet"plays.Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration.John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end.Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however.Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format.Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp.Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind.I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks!

Answer: Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp

This is another in the "Midnite Movies" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine. However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident. After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world. He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him. Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence. Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead. The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die. Earth one,aliens nothing. Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie. Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is. It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster. Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet. Journey puts the "bad" into the B-movie. It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn. Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location. The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them. They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested. Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet. They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way. Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship. A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave. Outside is waiting one of the captain's "mirage" women and for some reason he takes her aboard. All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the "mirage" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day "Journey to the 7th Planet"plays. Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration. John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end. Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however. Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format. <hl> Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate. <hl> Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind. I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks!

This is another in the "Midnite Movies" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine.However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident.After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world.He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him.Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence.Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead.The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die.Earth one,aliens nothing.Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie.Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is.It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster.Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet.Journey puts the "bad" into the B-movie.It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn.Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location.The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them.They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested.Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet.They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way.Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship.A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave.Outside is waiting one of the captain's "mirage" women and for some reason he takes her aboard.All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the "mirage" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day "Journey to the 7th Planet"plays.Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration.John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end.Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however.Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format.<hl> Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp <hl>.Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind.I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks!

<hl> Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp <hl> .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.


Question: How is the quality of the film?

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant!

Answer: Both picture and sound were awesome

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here. And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. <hl> Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED. <hl> Watching these films will be an annual event for me. Brilliant!

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. <hl> Both picture and sound were awesome <hl> on my 55" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant!


Question: Is the audio level of the DVD high?

When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead "ultimate Edition" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost. From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy!

Answer: The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost

When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead "ultimate Edition" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. <hl> The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost . <hl> From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy!

When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead "ultimate Edition" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. <hl> The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost <hl>. From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy!

<hl> The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost <hl> .


Question: What is the set of things you want?

I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television. With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it.

Answer: I am in love with BBC these television shows

<hl> I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television. <hl> With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it.

<hl> I am in love with BBC these television shows <hl> are far superior in my opinion to American television. With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it.


Question: Do you have good content?

The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic. It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first.The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time!

Answer: movies are well known

<hl> The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic. <hl> It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first. The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time!

The "Back To The Future" <hl> movies are well known <hl> by most people and are considered to be a classic. It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first.The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time!


Question: How is the character?

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).

Answer: The characters are very quirky which I enjoy.

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. <hl> The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. <hl> Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).

This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. <hl> The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. <hl> The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).


Question: How is the film?

I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas. It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and...

Answer: I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas

<hl> I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas . <hl> It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and...

<hl> I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas <hl>. It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and...

<hl> I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas <hl> .


Question: Is the plot usefull or not?

Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago.  This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster.  The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin.  Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace.  Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions.  Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority.  Damon suffered a lot acting in this film.  While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one.  This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under-developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film.  Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film.  Not a very satisfying sci-fi film.

Answer: developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film

Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago. This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin. Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace. Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions. Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority. Damon suffered a lot acting in this film. While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one. <hl> This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film . <hl> Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film. Not a very satisfying sci-fi film.

Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago. This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin. Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace. Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions. Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority. Damon suffered a lot acting in this film. While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one. This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under-<hl> developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film <hl>. Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film. Not a very satisfying sci-fi film.

This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- <hl> developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film <hl> .


Question: Is the movie's story pretty?

Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, "Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought." The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete.I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like "It's A Wonderful Life" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life.  It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all. There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, "Rachel" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie.I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was.The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny.Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful.

Answer: story in the movie makes little to no sense at all

Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, "Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought." The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete. I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like "It's A Wonderful Life" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life. It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. <hl> The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all . <hl> There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, "Rachel" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie. I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was. The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny. Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful.

Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, "Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought." The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete.I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like "It's A Wonderful Life" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life. It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's <hl> story in the movie makes little to no sense at all <hl>. There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, "Rachel" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie.I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was.The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny.Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful.

The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's <hl> story in the movie makes little to no sense at all <hl> .


Question: How is the quality of film?

I know very well how much controversy this story has created.  The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate.  I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion.  I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new.  This film is not very good at all.  The script is preachy.  The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast.  They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines.  The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention.  Visually it's not of epic proportions.  Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department.  The events themselves are almost silly at times.  For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history.  Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good.  The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand.  If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good.  (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*)  The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action.  Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless.  She does basically nothing.  She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her.  Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man.  This movie is a sexist attack on sexism.  But its heart is in the right place I guess.  (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*)  In all, this movie was pretty good.  It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions.  Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey.  I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen.

Answer: This film is not very good at all.  The script is preachy.  The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast

I know very well how much controversy this story has created. The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate. I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion. I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new. <hl> This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast . <hl> They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines. The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention. Visually it's not of epic proportions. Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department. The events themselves are almost silly at times. For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history. Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good. The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand. If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good. (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*) The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action. Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless. She does basically nothing. She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her. Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man. This movie is a sexist attack on sexism. But its heart is in the right place I guess. (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*) In all, this movie was pretty good. It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions. Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey. I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen.

I know very well how much controversy this story has created. The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate. I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion. I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new. <hl> This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast <hl>. They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines. The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention. Visually it's not of epic proportions. Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department. The events themselves are almost silly at times. For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history. Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good. The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand. If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good. (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*) The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action. Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless. She does basically nothing. She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her. Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man. This movie is a sexist attack on sexism. But its heart is in the right place I guess. (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*) In all, this movie was pretty good. It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions. Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey. I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen.

<hl> This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast <hl> .


Question: Was a great scene film?

Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible.  How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see.  Great job.

Answer: the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible

<hl> Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible . <hl> How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see. Great job.

Good acting and <hl> the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible <hl>. How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see. Great job.

Good acting and <hl> the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible <hl> .


Question: Is superbit quality high or low?

I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre.  Books, movies, games, you name it.  I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons.  So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray.This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all.  I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was.  There is grit, action, and brains to this movie.  The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path.I won't give away the ending.  But my wife didn't like it.  Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie.  Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character.

Answer: This is a stunning movie

I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre. Books, movies, games, you name it. I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons. So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray. <hl> This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all. <hl> I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was. There is grit, action, and brains to this movie. The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path. I won't give away the ending. But my wife didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie. Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character.

I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre. Books, movies, games, you name it. I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons. So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray.<hl> This is a stunning movie <hl> that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all. I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was. There is grit, action, and brains to this movie. The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path.I won't give away the ending. But my wife didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie. Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character.