Question: Is this movie recommended?

To be honest, when this movie first came out, I really didn't think too much of it. Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the "A" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!.

Answer: when this movie first came out

<hl> To be honest, when this movie first came out , I really didn't think too much of it. <hl> Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the "A" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!.

To be honest, <hl> when this movie first came out <hl>, I really didn't think too much of it. Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the "A" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!.

To be honest, <hl> when this movie first came out <hl> , I really didn't think too much of it.


Question: How is the music?

It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic, and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time.

Answer: music in the film is fantastic

It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. <hl> Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. <hl> Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time.

It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. Undeniably, the <hl> music in the film is fantastic <hl>, and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time.

Undeniably, the <hl> music in the film is fantastic <hl> , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying.


Question: What do you think about the movie?

I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured.One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final.Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography.It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too.If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable.

Answer: are very good films and are enjoyable

I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured. One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final. Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography. It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too. If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. <hl> But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable . <hl>

I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured.One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final.Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography.It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too.If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' <hl> are very good films and are enjoyable <hl>.

But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' <hl> are very good films and are enjoyable <hl> .


Question: What is the name of the best action film?

Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver.Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an "A".

Answer: Using an alien hybrid

Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. <hl> Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. <hl> Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an "A".

Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. <hl> Using an alien hybrid <hl> called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver.Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an "A".


Question: How is product?

this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through. GET IT.

Answer: the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through

this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. <hl> also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through . <hl> GET IT.

this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. also, <hl> the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through <hl>. GET IT.

also, <hl> the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through <hl> .


Question: How was the plot of the movie?

I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it.For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of "neat stuff" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. It was in the annual's that such fan questions as "if Hulk met Thor, who would win?" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun.Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold.I found two other flaws with the film, however.From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag (Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously.The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing "the Dozens" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very "loner" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging.Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation.One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas.

Answer: entire idea was to cram

I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it. For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. <hl> In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of "neat stuff" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. <hl> It was in the annual's that such fan questions as "if Hulk met Thor, who would win?" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun. Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold. I found two other flaws with the film, however. From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag ( Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously. The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing "the Dozens" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very "loner" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging. Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation. One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas.

I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it.For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. In the Annual issue, the <hl> entire idea was to cram <hl> it as full of "neat stuff" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. It was in the annual's that such fan questions as "if Hulk met Thor, who would win?" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun.Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold.I found two other flaws with the film, however.From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag (Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously.The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing "the Dozens" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very "loner" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging.Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation.One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas.


Question: How do you hear the music?

My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie.  Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible.  One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch.  It is so immersive.  The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy.  This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit.  This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything.  Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre.  Just see it.

Answer: the music is incredible

My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie. <hl> Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible . <hl> One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch. It is so immersive. The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy. This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit. This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything. Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre. Just see it.

My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie. Why, because it so well done, and because <hl> the music is incredible <hl>. One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch. It is so immersive. The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy. This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit. This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything. Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre. Just see it.

Why, because it so well done, and because <hl> the music is incredible <hl> .


Question: How is this filmso good?

Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why.The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable. But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over.  Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is.Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more.

Answer: yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances

Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why. The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... <hl> I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable. <hl> But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over. Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is. Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more.

Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why.The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... I'll let you figure it out for <hl> yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances <hl> (especially Elwes) are often laughable. But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over. Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is.Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more.


Question: Can I know a new story about parks?

..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great.Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better.I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed.A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base.Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs.The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing.All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong.

Answer: FANTASTIC

..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. <hl> After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. <hl> And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great. Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better. I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed. A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base. Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs. The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing. All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong.

..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. After the <hl> FANTASTIC <hl> Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great.Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better.I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed.A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base.Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs.The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing.All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong.


Question: Why do I have an extra fun?

I still can't believe this movie was even made.  After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX.  Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do.  Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX.  Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere.  The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters.  You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast.  People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true.Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity.  Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew.  This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban "Wash" Washburn (Alan Tudyk).  Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal.  Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate.  They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam.  The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin.While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others.  Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught.  Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport.  Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard.Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it.  As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot.  A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly.  I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation.  Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility).  And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development).  Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours.  He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story.Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs.  No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way.  The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back.  Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great.  With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless.  The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy.All in all, this is an amazing film.  I can't understand how it didn't take off.  It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent.  For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity.  Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films.  Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it).  Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it.  They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line.  While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now.

Answer: While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now

I still can't believe this movie was even made. After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX. Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do. Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX. Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere. The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters. You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast. People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true. Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew. This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban "Wash" Washburn (Alan Tudyk). Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal. Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate. They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam. The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin. While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others. Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught. Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport. Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard. Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it. As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot. A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly. I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation. Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility). And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development). Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours. He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story. Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs. No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way. The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back. Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great. With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless. The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy. All in all, this is an amazing film. I can't understand how it didn't take off. It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent. For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity. Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films. Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it). Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it. They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line. <hl> While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now . <hl>

I still can't believe this movie was even made. After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX. Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do. Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX. Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere. The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters. You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast. People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true.Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew. This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban "Wash" Washburn (Alan Tudyk). Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal. Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate. They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam. The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin.While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others. Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught. Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport. Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard.Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it. As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot. A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly. I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation. Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility). And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development). Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours. He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story.Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs. No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way. The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back. Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great. With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless. The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy.All in all, this is an amazing film. I can't understand how it didn't take off. It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent. For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity. Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films. Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it). Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it. They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line. <hl> While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now <hl>.

<hl> While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now <hl> .


Question: How was the episode?

I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD.  The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant.  I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash."  Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!"  Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history.

Answer: The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant

I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD. <hl> The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant . <hl> I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash." Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!" Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history.

I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD. <hl> The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant <hl>. I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash." Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!" Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history.

<hl> The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant <hl> .


Question: How is the film?

In a film like DEAD ALIVE, the plot is basically pointless. The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again.  Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore.  DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans.

Answer: In a film like DEAD ALIVE

<hl> In a film like DEAD ALIVE , the plot is basically pointless. <hl> The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again. Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore. DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans.

<hl> In a film like DEAD ALIVE <hl>, the plot is basically pointless. The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again. Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore. DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans.

<hl> In a film like DEAD ALIVE <hl> , the plot is basically pointless.


Question: How do you hear the music?

If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. The music is wonderful! I didn't want it to end.

Answer: The music is wonderful

The music is wonderful !

If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. <hl> The music is wonderful ! <hl> I didn't want it to end.

If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. <hl> The music is wonderful <hl>! I didn't want it to end.


Question: How was each character characterized?

It's a better movie that you might think.  It's a very successful "summer blockbuster" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution.  As others have said the effects are spot on.  The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him.*** mini-spoilers ahead:  ***As to the complaints about the aliens being "dumb", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the "Indians".  So... think about it.  When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone.  They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less.  But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked.  If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first.  I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see.*** end spoilers ***Last note:  Don't miss the end of the credits.  ;-)

Answer: The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him

It's a better movie that you might think. It's a very successful "summer blockbuster" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution. As others have said the effects are spot on. <hl> The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him . <hl> *** mini-spoilers ahead: ***As to the complaints about the aliens being "dumb", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the "Indians". So... think about it. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone. They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less. But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked. If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first. I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see. *** end spoilers ***Last note: Don't miss the end of the credits. ;-)

It's a better movie that you might think. It's a very successful "summer blockbuster" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution. As others have said the effects are spot on. <hl> The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him <hl>.*** mini-spoilers ahead: ***As to the complaints about the aliens being "dumb", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the "Indians". So... think about it. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone. They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less. But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked. If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first. I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see.*** end spoilers ***Last note: Don't miss the end of the credits. ;-)

<hl> The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him <hl> .