Question: What was the best set to shoot this movie?

Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are. They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too.From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say "Dayyyum!" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s ("Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.") but it was just bookending it too quickly.I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection.

Answer: outstanding the first two movies are

<hl> Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are . <hl> They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too. From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say "Dayyyum!" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s ("Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.") but it was just bookending it too quickly. I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection.

Everybody who is anybody knows how <hl> outstanding the first two movies are <hl>. They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too.From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say "Dayyyum!" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s ("Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.") but it was just bookending it too quickly.I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection.

Everybody who is anybody knows how <hl> outstanding the first two movies are <hl> .


Question: What opinion do you give us about this movie?

I wanted to like "Sherlock Holmes." I really did. But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film, which is a rarity for me. I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than "Sherlock Holmes"...but, seriously, why would you want to?

Answer: this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film

I wanted to like "Sherlock Holmes." I really did. <hl> But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film , which is a rarity for me. <hl> I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than "Sherlock Holmes"...but, seriously, why would you want to?

I wanted to like "Sherlock Holmes." I really did. But <hl> this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film <hl>, which is a rarity for me. I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than "Sherlock Holmes"...but, seriously, why would you want to?

But <hl> this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film <hl> , which is a rarity for me.


Question: How is the music?

A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least,  Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show.

Answer: The music, sets and cinematography are incredible

A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. <hl> The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show. <hl>

A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. <hl> The music, sets and cinematography are incredible <hl> and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show.


Question: How is the quality of the picture quality?

I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released.  Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine.  So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas.  Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it.  I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing.  Its like being at work.  And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then.

Answer: the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing.  Its like being at work.  And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then.

I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released. Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine. So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas. Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it. <hl> I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. <hl>

I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released. Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine. So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas. Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it. I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but <hl> the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. <hl>


Question: How is the music?

I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film.  I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull.  There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing "Mr. Kite" as if determined to trash the song.  Except for him,  the voices are all good and touching, especially that of "Sadie" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge.  That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script.  Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph.  And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of "Dear Prudence."  That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs.

Answer: the songs are being plugged in

I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film. I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull. There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing "Mr. Kite" as if determined to trash the song. Except for him, the voices are all good and touching, especially that of "Sadie" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. <hl> Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script. <hl> Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph. And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of "Dear Prudence." That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs.

I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film. I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull. There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing "Mr. Kite" as if determined to trash the song. Except for him, the voices are all good and touching, especially that of "Sadie" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. Here, you feel at times as if <hl> the songs are being plugged in <hl> mechanically to a not very inventive script. Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph. And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of "Dear Prudence." That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs.


Question: How is music?

I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits).  I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals.

Answer: has many musical

I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. <hl> I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. <hl> In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits). I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals.

I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. I love how the movie <hl> has many musical <hl> numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits). I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals.


Question: How is this filmso good?

Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of "holes" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and "Attack of the Clones" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the "Ultimate Enhanced Version" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch "Serenity" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of "Mannequin" to "Annakin" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story.

Answer: Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film

<hl> Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). <hl> Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of "holes" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and "Attack of the Clones" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the "Ultimate Enhanced Version" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch "Serenity" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of "Mannequin" to "Annakin" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story.

<hl> Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film <hl> (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of "holes" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and "Attack of the Clones" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the "Ultimate Enhanced Version" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch "Serenity" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of "Mannequin" to "Annakin" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story.


Question: Do you like the film?

"Ray," Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend.  I liked some aspects of this film very much.  Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues.The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking.  Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout.  She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight.  CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes.  I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again.By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles.  Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit.  For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles.  Period.  The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get "Hit the Road Jack" out of my head.There were other portions of this film that irritated me.  Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie.  The worst of these are the "Aha!" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich.  There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made "Ray" a truly great movie.Still, you should see "Ray" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music.  These alone are worth the price of admission.

Answer: liked some aspects of this film very much

"Ray," Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend. <hl> I liked some aspects of this film very much . <hl> Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues. The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking. Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout. She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight. CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes. I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again. By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles. Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit. For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. Period. The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get "Hit the Road Jack" out of my head. There were other portions of this film that irritated me. Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie. The worst of these are the "Aha!" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich. There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made "Ray" a truly great movie. Still, you should see "Ray" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music. These alone are worth the price of admission.

"Ray," Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend. I <hl> liked some aspects of this film very much <hl>. Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues.The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking. Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout. She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight. CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes. I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again.By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles. Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit. For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. Period. The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get "Hit the Road Jack" out of my head.There were other portions of this film that irritated me. Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie. The worst of these are the "Aha!" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich. There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made "Ray" a truly great movie.Still, you should see "Ray" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music. These alone are worth the price of admission.

I <hl> liked some aspects of this film very much <hl> .


Question: What about the result?

I really did not expect much of this film last summer, not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace.  Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed.  However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience.  I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed.This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales.  Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast.  And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.)  I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife.  I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut.  There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were.  The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine.  The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.)  The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt.  (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic  that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout.  As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.)  Check it out, you won't be bored.

Answer: I really did not expect much of this film last summer

<hl> I really did not expect much of this film last summer , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace. <hl> Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed. However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience. I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed. This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales. Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast. And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.) I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife. I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut. There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were. The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine. The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.) The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt. (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout. As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.) Check it out, you won't be bored.

<hl> I really did not expect much of this film last summer <hl>, not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace. Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed. However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience. I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed.This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales. Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast. And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.) I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife. I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut. There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were. The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine. The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.) The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt. (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout. As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.) Check it out, you won't be bored.

<hl> I really did not expect much of this film last summer <hl> , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace.


Question: How was the scene?

"Argo f*** yourself." You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's "Argo." In all seriousness, "Argo" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream "in case of emergency disco dancing pop up." The camera work deserves some accolades, as well. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air.The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to "Argo," instantly makes him the highlight of the film.Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in "Breaking Bad," he's been popping up in a lot of movies; "Red Tails," "John Carter," "Madagascar 3," "Rock of Ages," "Total Recall," and now "Argo" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in "Breaking Bad" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. "Argo" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here.What's disappointing about "Argo" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding.Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like "Oh, nevermind." You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable.While "Argo" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran.Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. "Argo" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter.

Answer: The camera work deserves some accolades

"Argo f*** yourself." You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's "Argo." In all seriousness, "Argo" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. <hl> Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream "in case of emergency disco dancing pop up." The camera work deserves some accolades , as well. <hl> Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air. The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to "Argo," instantly makes him the highlight of the film. Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in "Breaking Bad," he's been popping up in a lot of movies; "Red Tails," "John Carter," "Madagascar 3," "Rock of Ages," "Total Recall," and now "Argo" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in "Breaking Bad" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. "Argo" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here. What's disappointing about "Argo" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding. Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like "Oh, nevermind." You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable. While "Argo" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran. Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. "Argo" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter.

"Argo f*** yourself." You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's "Argo." In all seriousness, "Argo" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream "in case of emergency disco dancing pop up." <hl> The camera work deserves some accolades <hl>, as well. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air.The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to "Argo," instantly makes him the highlight of the film.Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in "Breaking Bad," he's been popping up in a lot of movies; "Red Tails," "John Carter," "Madagascar 3," "Rock of Ages," "Total Recall," and now "Argo" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in "Breaking Bad" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. "Argo" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here.What's disappointing about "Argo" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding.Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like "Oh, nevermind." You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable.While "Argo" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran.Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. "Argo" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter.

Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream "in case of emergency disco dancing pop up." <hl> The camera work deserves some accolades <hl> , as well.


Question: How about voice?

For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine.  Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect.  She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life.  Not a bad thing.  I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with.  However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic.  I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script.  Oh, well.  It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score.  The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do.  Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect.  There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film.  This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler.  Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough.  He simply did not belong in this role.  The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly.  But scarred and ugly is the whole point.  The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face.  Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion.  They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage.  Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories.

Answer: whose voice is a little too thick and contrived

For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie. <hl> I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. <hl> Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage. Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed. The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original. The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again. Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right. But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one. Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene. Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories.

For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, <hl> whose voice is a little too thick and contrived <hl> for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories.


Question: How did you like the story?

I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages.The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale.Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas.Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film, thin lipped and sallow. It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film.The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained.

Answer: I found him decidedly unattractive in this film

I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages. The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale. Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas. Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. <hl> Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film , thin lipped and sallow. <hl> It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film. The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained.

I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages.The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale.Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas.Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though <hl> I found him decidedly unattractive in this film <hl>, thin lipped and sallow. It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film.The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained.

Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though <hl> I found him decidedly unattractive in this film <hl> , thin lipped and sallow.


Question: Do you like character development?

This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched. Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing.

Answer: This series has the best character development

<hl> This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched. <hl> Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing.

<hl> This series has the best character development <hl> of any show I've ever watched. Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing.


Question: How were the stunts?

I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series. Overall, the plot was decent.

Answer: I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series

I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. <hl> I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series . <hl> Overall, the plot was decent.

I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. <hl> I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series <hl>. Overall, the plot was decent.

<hl> I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series <hl> .