Question: How is the film?

As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house.  A geisha is a "moving work of art" who sells her skills.  Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her.  She is instead forced to perform chores for the house.  After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron.  Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients."Memoirs" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha.  Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time.  Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles.  Li is suitably dislikeable in hers.  The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well.  This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long.  Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers.  Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film.

Answer: A geisha is a "moving work of art

As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house. <hl> A geisha is a "moving work of art " who sells her skills. <hl> Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her. She is instead forced to perform chores for the house. After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron. Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients. "Memoirs" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha. Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time. Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles. Li is suitably dislikeable in hers. The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well. This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long. Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers. Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film.

As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house. <hl> A geisha is a "moving work of art <hl>" who sells her skills. Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her. She is instead forced to perform chores for the house. After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron. Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients."Memoirs" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha. Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time. Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles. Li is suitably dislikeable in hers. The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well. This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long. Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers. Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film.

<hl> A geisha is a "moving work of art <hl> " who sells her skills.


Question: What does the movie have?

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.

Answer: I saw this movie about a month ago

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself. Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately. The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy. <hl> I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. <hl> It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.

"Brokeback Mountain" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of "Titanic" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.<hl> I saw this movie about a month ago <hl> and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.


Question: How was the series?

So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed.  I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on).  I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect.  Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations.  I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show.  The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining.  Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows.  Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same.  Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version).  If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours.

Answer: the show isn't perfect.  Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem

So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed. I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on). <hl> I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations. <hl> I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show. The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining. Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows. Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same. Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version). If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours.

So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed. I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on). I do want to emphasize that <hl> the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem <hl> like picky observations. I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show. The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining. Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows. Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same. Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version). If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours.


Question: What is your favorite collection?

The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

Answer: The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME

<hl> The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME ! <hl> If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

<hl> The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME <hl>! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.

<hl> The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME <hl> !


Question: Do you think humor is good?

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.

Answer: simple humor is sometimes best

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? <hl> I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. <hl> Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.

Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and <hl> simple humor is sometimes best <hl>.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.

I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and <hl> simple humor is sometimes best <hl> .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect.


Question: How about the character of the actors in the movie?

First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien.There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film.If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related.I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs.Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense.The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic.The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as "David", Noomi Rapace as "Elizabeth Shaw", and Charlie Theron as "Meredith Vickers".The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not "Alien" and I agree, to an extent, but that was  not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story.For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel.If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect "Alien". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers.

Answer: with less character development scenes

First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien. There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film. If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related. I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs. Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense. The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic. The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as "David", Noomi Rapace as "Elizabeth Shaw", and Charlie Theron as "Meredith Vickers". The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. <hl> It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not "Alien" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. <hl> It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story. For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel. If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect "Alien". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers.

First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien.There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film.If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related.I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs.Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense.The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic.The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as "David", Noomi Rapace as "Elizabeth Shaw", and Charlie Theron as "Meredith Vickers".The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do <hl> with less character development scenes <hl> (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not "Alien" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story.For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel.If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect "Alien". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers.


Question: How is the cast?

Wow! How do you spell `Wow" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's "Memento", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of "Batman Begins".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, "The Last Emperor"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, "28 Days Later"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton "Batman" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan ("Memento", "Insomnia") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In "Batman Begins", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in "Star Wars Episode III". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And "Begins" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In "Begins", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? "Batman Begins" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan.

Answer: divert

Wow! How do you spell `Wow" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's "Memento", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of "Batman Begins". Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, "The Last Emperor"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, "28 Days Later"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham. I am a big fan of the Tim Burton "Batman" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan ("Memento", "Insomnia") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In "Batman Begins", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego. Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike. There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. <hl> In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. <hl> Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding. The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in "Star Wars Episode III". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable. Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne. Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And "Begins" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe. Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role. Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak. The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue. Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable. There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In "Begins", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well. The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform. Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? "Batman Begins" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel. Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan.

Wow! How do you spell `Wow" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's "Memento", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of "Batman Begins".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, "The Last Emperor"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, "28 Days Later"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton "Batman" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan ("Memento", "Insomnia") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In "Batman Begins", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to <hl> divert <hl> attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in "Star Wars Episode III". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And "Begins" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In "Begins", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? "Batman Begins" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan.


Question: How is plot?

It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic.  Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film.  Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet. Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable.

Answer: The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet

It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic. Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film. Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. <hl> The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet . <hl> Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable.

It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic. Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film. Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. <hl> The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet <hl>. Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable.

<hl> The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet <hl> .


Question: How was plot?

It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies.The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend.Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work.The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work.Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea.I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean.Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way.The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural.I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving. I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth.Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it.Overall score 4.5/5

Answer: The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving

It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies. The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend. Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work. The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work. Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea. I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean. Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way. The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural. I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. <hl> The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving . <hl> I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth. Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it. Overall score 4.5/5

It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies.The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend.Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work.The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work.Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea.I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean.Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way.The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural.I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. <hl> The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving <hl>. I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth.Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it.Overall score 4.5/5

<hl> The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving <hl> .


Question: How is the music?

This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. The music and performing were wonderful. I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period!

Answer: The music and performing were wonderful

This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. <hl> The music and performing were wonderful . <hl> I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period!

This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. <hl> The music and performing were wonderful <hl>. I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period!

<hl> The music and performing were wonderful <hl> .


Question: How is the animation?

This movie is awesomeness. The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house. From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a  gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it.

Answer: The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this

This movie is awesomeness. <hl> The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house. <hl> From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it.

This movie is awesomeness. <hl> The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this <hl> movie in our house. From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it.


Question: How is the picture quality?

I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did. I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version.

Answer: I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did

<hl> I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did . <hl> I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version.

<hl> I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did <hl>. I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version.

<hl> I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did <hl> .


Question: How about audio?

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

Answer: The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. <hl> The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero , and the special features have me intrigued. <hl> I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. <hl> The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero <hl>, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

<hl> The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero <hl> , and the special features have me intrigued.


Question: How is the story?

The acting was rough. The story was light. But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek.

Answer: The story was light

The story was light .

The acting was rough. <hl> The story was light . <hl> But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek.

The acting was rough. <hl> The story was light <hl>. But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek.


Question: How did you like the audio?

this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. The picture and sound are excellent. I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it.

Answer: sound are excellent

The picture and sound are excellent .

this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. <hl> The picture and sound are excellent . <hl> I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it.

this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. The picture and <hl> sound are excellent <hl>. I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it.

The picture and <hl> sound are excellent <hl> .