Question: How is movie?

It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well-deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians.MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed.STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out.ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece.OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched.THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece.THE BAD: Very little music.

Answer: This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well

It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). <hl> This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received. <hl> WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians. MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed. STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out. ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece. OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched. THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece. THE BAD: Very little music.

It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). <hl> This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well <hl>-deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians.MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed.STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out.ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece.OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched.THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece.THE BAD: Very little music.

<hl> This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well <hl> -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.


Question: How is the picture?

First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption.  This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset.  All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized.  Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown.  Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time.  Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people.  Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story.  When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay.  But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why.  There's no need for it.  The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked.  Why does he keep messing with it?  In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice!  Again, I ask why?  Fett's voice was awesome.  He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader.  His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive.  This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete.  And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi?  Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him.  Why does he keep messing with these movies?  You had it right the first time Georgey boy!  If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace?  He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc.  He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks.  So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk.  Oh cruel fate!

Answer: there just to help you tell a story

First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. <hl> Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story . <hl> When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!

First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are <hl> there just to help you tell a story <hl>. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!

Lucas himself once said that special effects are <hl> there just to help you tell a story <hl> .


Question: Why do I have a music appropriate?

I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of.  the stories are full of strange moments that make you think "what the heck is going on here?  NO ONE would put up with this tripe!"  On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing.  BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16.  the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant!  how is this responsible and brave?  I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot.

Answer: strange moments

I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of. <hl> the stories are full of strange moments that make you think & <hl> #34;what the heck is going on here? NO ONE would put up with this tripe!" On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing. BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16. the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant! how is this responsible and brave? I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot.

I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of. the stories are full of <hl> strange moments <hl> that make you think "what the heck is going on here? NO ONE would put up with this tripe!" On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing. BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16. the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant! how is this responsible and brave? I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot.

the stories are full of <hl> strange moments <hl> that make you think &


Question: What is the feature like?

If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away. I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!!

Answer: The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away

If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. <hl> The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away . <hl> I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!!

If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. <hl> The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away <hl>. I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!!

<hl> The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away <hl> .


Question: How is problem?

Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart.  The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test...To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least!  The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be "all man" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent!  In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over.Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment.

Answer: Mystic

<hl> Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart. <hl> The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test... To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least! The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be "all man" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent! In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over. Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment.

<hl> Mystic <hl> River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart. The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test...To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least! The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be "all man" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent! In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over.Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment.


Question: How is it commentary?

I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery.  I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites.  This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score, great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes.  From the opening moments I was hooked.  I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action.  Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past.  Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love.  We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know.  I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles.  I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character.The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video.  If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD.

Answer: nice instrumental score

I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery. I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites. <hl> This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes. <hl> From the opening moments I was hooked. I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action. Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past. Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love. We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know. I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles. I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character. The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video. If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD.

I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery. I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites. This movie has it all with an interesting story, <hl> nice instrumental score <hl>, great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes. From the opening moments I was hooked. I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action. Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past. Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love. We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know. I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles. I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character.The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video. If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD.

This movie has it all with an interesting story, <hl> nice instrumental score <hl> , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes.


Question: How was the movie?

I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes. The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups.

Answer: The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes

I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. <hl> The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes . <hl> The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups.

I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. <hl> The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes <hl>. The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups.

<hl> The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

I went into this film having never read the books, though I knew something about the world. I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one.The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat.If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard.I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers.It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding.Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive.The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun.I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic "From Mars" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights.

Answer: I went into this film having never read the books

<hl> I went into this film having never read the books , though I knew something about the world. <hl> I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one. The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat. If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard. I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers. It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding. Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive. The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun. I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic "From Mars" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights.

<hl> I went into this film having never read the books <hl>, though I knew something about the world. I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one.The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat.If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard.I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers.It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding.Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive.The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun.I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic "From Mars" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights.

<hl> I went into this film having never read the books <hl> , though I knew something about the world.


Question: How was the plot of this story?

Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made.  This is a total crapfest:  every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.George Lucas should be ashamed.  He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage.

Answer: the plot is pointless

Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made. <hl> This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous. <hl> George Lucas should be ashamed. He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage.

Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made. This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, <hl> the plot is pointless <hl>...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.George Lucas should be ashamed. He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage.

This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, <hl> the plot is pointless <hl> ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.


Question: How is the show?

The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for. And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality.

Answer: this show is so superior to most network programing

<hl> The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for. <hl> And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality.

The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so <hl> this show is so superior to most network programing <hl> that five stars are definitely called for. And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality.


Question: How is the quality of the movie?

As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie so visually stunning. Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end.There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel.

Answer: visually stunning

so visually stunning .

As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie <hl> so visually stunning . <hl> Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end. There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel.

As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie so <hl> visually stunning <hl>. Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end.There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel.


Question: What is the most interesting aspect among the characters?

Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray.I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there.  I was wrong.Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent.  In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission.  As far as the movie itself, this is a great one.  The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event.  The directing is top-notch.  The acting is excellent and wholly believable.  Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular.

Answer: the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission.  As far as the movie itself, this is a great one.  The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event.  The directing is top-notch.  The acting is excellent and wholly believable.

Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray. I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there. I was wrong. Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent. <hl> In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over. <hl> Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular.

Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray.I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there. I was wrong.Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent. In terms of value, <hl> the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. <hl> Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular.


Question: Why is the movie shocking?

The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory.  In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general.The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject.  It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time.  Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story.  For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured.  An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ.The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done.  Violence, after all is a major part of art.Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than "dreck," but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema.  This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday.

Answer: The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done.  Violence, after all is a major part of art

The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory. In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general. The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject. It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time. Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire. The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story. For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured. An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ. <hl> The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than "dreck," but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema. <hl> This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday.

The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory. In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general.The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject. It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time. Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story. For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured. An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ.<hl> The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art <hl>.Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than "dreck," but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema. This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday.

<hl> The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art <hl> .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than "dreck," but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema.


Question: What kind of things happen in this movie?

This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely.  1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome.Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far.  The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in.  The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light.  I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him.  I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said "Wow".  Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird.  The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain.  The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together.  I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature.  Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects.  I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something.  I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face.  Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed.

Answer: Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie

This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely. 1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome. <hl> Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far. <hl> The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in. The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light. I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him. I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said "Wow". Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird. The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain. The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together. I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature. Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects. I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something. I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face. Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed.

This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely. 1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome.<hl> Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie <hl> before it even with all that's been out so far. The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in. The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light. I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him. I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said "Wow". Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird. The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain. The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together. I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature. Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects. I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something. I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face. Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed.


Question: What is commentary?

I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition.  It was worth the wait.  And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip.  This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful.  The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example).  This looks great.  The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect.  The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding.  The director's commentary is entertaining.  The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time.The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little.  There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know).  There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes.  Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless.Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series.  It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters.  While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it.  I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot.In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money.  But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do.

Answer: commentary is entertaining

I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition. It was worth the wait. And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip. This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful. The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example). This looks great. The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect. The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding. <hl> The director's commentary is entertaining . <hl> The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time. The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little. There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know). There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes. Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless. Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series. It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters. While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it. I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot. In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money. But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do.

I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition. It was worth the wait. And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip. This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful. The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example). This looks great. The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect. The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding. The director's <hl> commentary is entertaining <hl>. The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time.The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little. There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know). There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes. Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless.Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series. It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters. While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it. I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot.In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money. But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do.

The director's <hl> commentary is entertaining <hl> .


Question: How is the scenery?

I did enjoy this movie. The scenery was beautiful, the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be.There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them.Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a "chlorea" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds.He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all.This storyline just did not make any sense to me.Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot.I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak.

Answer: The scenery was beautiful

I did enjoy this movie. <hl> The scenery was beautiful , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. <hl> The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be. There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them. Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a "chlorea" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds. He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all. This storyline just did not make any sense to me. Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot. I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak.

I did enjoy this movie. <hl> The scenery was beautiful <hl>, the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be.There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them.Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a "chlorea" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds.He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all.This storyline just did not make any sense to me.Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot.I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak.

<hl> The scenery was beautiful <hl> , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted.


Question: Does the actor have good quality?

I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War "North and South," but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out.  And I am so glad I did.  This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant.  I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely.  It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent.

Answer: the actors are brilliant

I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War "North and South," but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out. And I am so glad I did. <hl> This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant . <hl> I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely. It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent.

I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War "North and South," but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out. And I am so glad I did. This is an excellent production and <hl> the actors are brilliant <hl>. I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely. It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent.

This is an excellent production and <hl> the actors are brilliant <hl> .


Question: What is the tone of the movie?

I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film.  The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously.  That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case.Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best.  I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie.  This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting.  When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing.  Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable.  One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements.  I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies.  The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly.  It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant.  Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre.Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film.  The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through.  From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money.  Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience.  As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics.  In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie.  There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently.It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice.  I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film.  Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne.  I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either.  There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well.  But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed.Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original.  There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels.  As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type.

Answer: up reading the comics religiously

I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film. <hl> The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously . <hl> That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case. Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best. I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie. This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting. When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing. Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable. One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements. I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies. The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly. It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant. Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre. Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film. The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through. From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money. Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience. As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics. In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie. There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently. It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice. I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film. Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne. I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either. There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well. But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed. Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original. There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels. As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type.

I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film. The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew <hl> up reading the comics religiously <hl>. That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case.Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best. I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie. This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting. When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing. Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable. One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements. I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies. The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly. It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant. Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre.Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film. The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through. From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money. Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience. As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics. In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie. There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently.It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice. I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film. Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne. I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either. There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well. But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed.Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original. There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels. As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type.

The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew <hl> up reading the comics religiously <hl> .