Question: Which plot has the movie?

Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves.  The plot is intricate and intriguing, carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters.  In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop.  With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness.  The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction.This is a film full of strong female performers.  Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson.  Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine.  She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others.  Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine.This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do.

Answer: The plot is intricate and intriguing

Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves. <hl> The plot is intricate and intriguing , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters. <hl> In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop. With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness. The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction. This is a film full of strong female performers. Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson. Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine. She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others. Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do.

Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves. <hl> The plot is intricate and intriguing <hl>, carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters. In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop. With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness. The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction.This is a film full of strong female performers. Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson. Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine. She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others. Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine.This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do.

<hl> The plot is intricate and intriguing <hl> , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters.


Question: Does that have good graphics?

Mr. Del Toro  is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. it has good special effects and visuals. the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features.

Answer: it has good special effects and visuals

Mr. Del Toro is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. <hl> it has good special effects and visuals . <hl> the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features.

Mr. Del Toro is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. <hl> it has good special effects and visuals <hl>. the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features.

<hl> it has good special effects and visuals <hl> .


Question: How is the rest of the cast?

Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history.Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman  as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or  Nicole Kidman.The film  is fresh and original and  ends with the possibility of a sequel  so perhaps this is only a new  beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter.I have not delved into the actual plot  as there are more than  enough reviews that do that.  But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the  life of  Bob Kane's creation.So please dont miss out and  order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!!

Answer: excellent supporting acts

Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history. <hl> Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. <hl> The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman. The film is fresh and original and ends with the possibility of a sequel so perhaps this is only a new beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter. I have not delved into the actual plot as there are more than enough reviews that do that. But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the life of Bob Kane's creation. So please dont miss out and order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!!

Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history.Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with <hl> excellent supporting acts <hl> by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman.The film is fresh and original and ends with the possibility of a sequel so perhaps this is only a new beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter.I have not delved into the actual plot as there are more than enough reviews that do that. But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the life of Bob Kane's creation.So please dont miss out and order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!!


Question: What do you think about character?

The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played.  I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!!

Answer: characters are well developed and well played

<hl> The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played . <hl> I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!!

The acting is outstanding, all the different <hl> characters are well developed and well played <hl>. I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!!

The acting is outstanding, all the different <hl> characters are well developed and well played <hl> .


Question: Does this movie make to feel pace?

Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome.  The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome.  (Example:  In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home.  Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long.  Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie.  It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't. WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning.

Answer: It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on

Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome. The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome. (Example: In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home. Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long. Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie. <hl> It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't. <hl> WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning.

Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome. The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome. (Example: In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home. Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long. Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie. <hl> It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on <hl> --I know I sure couldn't. WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning.


Question: How is it the movie?

First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King. The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings.The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films.

Answer: the Elf King

First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. <hl> The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King . <hl> The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings. The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films.

First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by <hl> the Elf King <hl>. The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings.The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films.

The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by <hl> the Elf King <hl> .


Question: What do you think about character?

At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did.This show is fun as well as addictive.The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them.The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone.

Answer: making you want to want to know more about them

At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did. This show is fun as well as addictive. <hl> The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch. <hl> To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone.

At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did.This show is fun as well as addictive.The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically <hl> making you want to want to know more about them <hl>.The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone.

The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically <hl> making you want to want to know more about them <hl> .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.


Question: How is the film?

This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books.I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent.This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal. The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater.Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact.Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title.There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful.Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge.If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater.

Answer: is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal

This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books. I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent. <hl> This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal . <hl> The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater. Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact. Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title. There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful. Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge. If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater.

This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books.I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent.This Swedish film <hl> is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal <hl>. The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater.Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact.Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title.There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful.Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge.If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater.

This Swedish film <hl> is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal <hl> .


Question: Can we enjoy the movie along with our family?

I just saw "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and I'm still smiling.  What a nice surprise!  This is the best romantic comedy I've seen in a good while.  The story centers around a young woman (played very sweetly by Nia Vardalos) who meets Mr. Right after making a change in her plain and uneventful life.  The chance she takes pays off and she wins the heart of a handsome professor (John Corbett of "Northern Exposure and recently "Sex in the City) that leads to a wedding proposal.  A good majority of the film follows the couple as she introduces him to the her huge Greek clan and he to his rather sedated parents.  Lanie Kazan and Michael Constantine are superb as her parents and Andrea Martin, as Aunt Voula, is a riot.  The chemistry between Vardalos and Corbett is real and very touching.  The crowd I saw the movie with was as obviously as tickled as I was...we laughed ALL the way through!  GO SEE THIS MOVIE!  I guarantee you'll love it!

Answer: I guarantee you'll love it!

I guarantee you'll love it!

I just saw "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and I'm still smiling. What a nice surprise! This is the best romantic comedy I've seen in a good while. The story centers around a young woman (played very sweetly by Nia Vardalos) who meets Mr. Right after making a change in her plain and uneventful life. The chance she takes pays off and she wins the heart of a handsome professor (John Corbett of "Northern Exposure and recently "Sex in the City) that leads to a wedding proposal. A good majority of the film follows the couple as she introduces him to the her huge Greek clan and he to his rather sedated parents. Lanie Kazan and Michael Constantine are superb as her parents and Andrea Martin, as Aunt Voula, is a riot. The chemistry between Vardalos and Corbett is real and very touching. The crowd I saw the movie with was as obviously as tickled as I was...we laughed ALL the way through! GO SEE THIS MOVIE! <hl> I guarantee you'll love it! <hl>


Question: How is the story?

I went in to  "John Carter" filled with trepidation.  I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews.  Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really?  My suggestion to them is "don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something".  I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting.  Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess.  Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic.Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless.  OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console.  "John Carter" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them.Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar.  Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu.Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded?  Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like "John Carter"?  Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink.  If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8.

Answer: Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless

I went in to "John Carter" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is "don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot. I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic. <hl> Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless . <hl> OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. "John Carter" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them. Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu. Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like "John Carter"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8.

I went in to "John Carter" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is "don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic.<hl> Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless <hl>. OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. "John Carter" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them.Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu.Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like "John Carter"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8.

<hl> Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless <hl> .


Question: How is the quality of the story?

The storyline is rather simple - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.

Answer: The storyline is rather simple

<hl> The storyline is rather simple - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. <hl> However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way. By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times. The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.

<hl> The storyline is rather simple <hl> - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.


Question: How was the character?

My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time.  As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all.  This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons.  The characters have grown and changed, the cast has grown with it.  The stories have gotten better, and more interesting.  All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war.  I was thrilled.  Sisko has come into his own as captain.  All the characters are now more and more interesting.  The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around.  I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be.  Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show  (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick.  But the show didn't seem to care.  Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended.  Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2.  This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse.  Try this show.  I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer.

Answer: The characters have grown and changed

My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time. As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all. This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons. <hl> The characters have grown and changed , the cast has grown with it. <hl> The stories have gotten better, and more interesting. All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war. I was thrilled. Sisko has come into his own as captain. All the characters are now more and more interesting. The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around. I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be. Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick. But the show didn't seem to care. Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended. Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2. This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse. Try this show. I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer.

My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time. As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all. This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons. <hl> The characters have grown and changed <hl>, the cast has grown with it. The stories have gotten better, and more interesting. All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war. I was thrilled. Sisko has come into his own as captain. All the characters are now more and more interesting. The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around. I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be. Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick. But the show didn't seem to care. Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended. Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2. This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse. Try this show. I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer.

<hl> The characters have grown and changed <hl> , the cast has grown with it.


Question: How is the story?

I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film.What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character.A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song "Another Time," when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, "I should tell you, I should tell you..." only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days.The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film.Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS. The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way.

Answer: Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS

I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film. What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character. A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song "Another Time," when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, "I should tell you, I should tell you..." only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days. The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film. <hl> Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS . <hl> The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way.

I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film.What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character.A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song "Another Time," when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, "I should tell you, I should tell you..." only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days.The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film.<hl> Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS <hl>. The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way.

<hl> Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS <hl> .


Question: What do you think about actor?

I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows.  The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles.  It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar.  The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story.  It was something he just didn't talk about.  When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe.  After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it.I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII.

Answer: The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles

I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows. <hl> The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles . <hl> It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar. The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story. It was something he just didn't talk about. When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe. After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it. I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII.

I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows. <hl> The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles <hl>. It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar. The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story. It was something he just didn't talk about. When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe. After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it.I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII.

<hl> The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles <hl> .


Question: How is story?

The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances.  I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film.The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked.  The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways.  That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014.

Answer: the story is worthy of the performances

<hl> The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances . <hl> I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film. The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked. The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways. That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014.

The acting is superb, and <hl> the story is worthy of the performances <hl>. I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film.The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked. The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways. That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014.

The acting is superb, and <hl> the story is worthy of the performances <hl> .


Question: What about story?

Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time.  The hype behind it was enormous.  The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs.  So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations.  Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie.  Sure it had some bad parts.  Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. The story wasn't all that fascinating, tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever.  But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title.  I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film.  To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts.  As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars.  News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life.  Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is.And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life.

Answer: The story wasn't all that fascinating

Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time. The hype behind it was enormous. The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs. So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations. Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie. Sure it had some bad parts. Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. <hl> The story wasn't all that fascinating , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever. <hl> But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title. I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film. To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts. As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars. News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life. Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is. And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life.

Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time. The hype behind it was enormous. The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs. So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations. Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie. Sure it had some bad parts. Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. <hl> The story wasn't all that fascinating <hl>, tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever. But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title. I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film. To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts. As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars. News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life. Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is.And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life.

<hl> The story wasn't all that fascinating <hl> , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever.


Question: How are commentary?

I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time.Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good.  First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique  perspective of a movie about clerks.  Also, a hats off to the actors  because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this.  These  actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to  play the characters parts.  Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie  without the big budget.That's where "Clerks" is a winner.  It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles.  The acting  is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts.  The more  believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the  movie was for me.As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget  movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all.  As for  the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way  that you can't really hear the actors speak.  It's like one microphone was  being used. This was a big minus for the DVD.  Why put it in there if you  can't hear it that well.  The alternate ending was a shock and it's very  good they didn't include it in the final release.  It would of made the  movie very depressing.  The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays  with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much  more enjoyable.  If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's  that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there.  Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons.So, if you want to see a fun  movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh.

Answer: I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good

I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time. <hl> Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good . <hl> First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique perspective of a movie about clerks. Also, a hats off to the actors because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this. These actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to play the characters parts. Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie without the big budget. That's where "Clerks" is a winner. It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles. The acting is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts. The more believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the movie was for me. As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all. As for the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way that you can't really hear the actors speak. It's like one microphone was being used. This was a big minus for the DVD. Why put it in there if you can't hear it that well. The alternate ending was a shock and it's very good they didn't include it in the final release. It would of made the movie very depressing. The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much more enjoyable. If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there. Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons. So, if you want to see a fun movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh.

I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time.Well, <hl> I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good <hl>. First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique perspective of a movie about clerks. Also, a hats off to the actors because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this. These actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to play the characters parts. Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie without the big budget.That's where "Clerks" is a winner. It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles. The acting is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts. The more believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the movie was for me.As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all. As for the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way that you can't really hear the actors speak. It's like one microphone was being used. This was a big minus for the DVD. Why put it in there if you can't hear it that well. The alternate ending was a shock and it's very good they didn't include it in the final release. It would of made the movie very depressing. The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much more enjoyable. If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there. Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons.So, if you want to see a fun movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh.

Well, <hl> I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good <hl> .


Question: How can I read the set story at this hotel?

It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents.

Answer: It is really amazing

<hl> It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. <hl> It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents.

<hl> It is really amazing <hl> to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents.


Question: What is the quality of the animation?

This movie was awesome!  Everything about it was great.  It's perfect for both kids and adults.  The humor of this movie fits all ages.  You can find both high end and low end humor.  The animation is amazing.  A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES!  That's insane.  The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them.  The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters.

Answer: The animation is amazing

The animation is amazing .

This movie was awesome! Everything about it was great. It's perfect for both kids and adults. The humor of this movie fits all ages. You can find both high end and low end humor. <hl> The animation is amazing . <hl> A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES! That's insane. The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them. The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters.

This movie was awesome! Everything about it was great. It's perfect for both kids and adults. The humor of this movie fits all ages. You can find both high end and low end humor. <hl> The animation is amazing <hl>. A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES! That's insane. The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them. The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters.


Question: How is the quality of the show?

After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, "Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show." Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some "Otherly" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it...Game of Thrones.The show is excellent. The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre.

Answer: The show is excellent

The show is excellent .

After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, "Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show." Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some "Otherly" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it... Game of Thrones. <hl> The show is excellent . <hl> The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre.

After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, "Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show." Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some "Otherly" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it...Game of Thrones.<hl> The show is excellent <hl>. The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre.


Question: How is man?

First, let me say that I LOVE this movie! I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a "special" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version!  The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie!

Answer: I LOVE this movie

<hl> First, let me say that I LOVE this movie ! <hl> I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a "special" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version! The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie!

First, let me say that <hl> I LOVE this movie <hl>! I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a "special" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version! The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie!

First, let me say that <hl> I LOVE this movie <hl> !


Question: How is film?

Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie, which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead.  However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction.  Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent.Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out.  Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors.  Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had.  The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD.  Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters.  There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money.  It gives a great sense of desolation.  There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.)  It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical.In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films.  This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead.  Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.)  As for the classic complaint to all horror films, "It's not scary." well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary.  Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes.  The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement.  There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in.  These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast.Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason.  Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time.  There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism.  The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end.  It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that.Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is.  That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot.  That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture.  This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good.There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy.  Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome.This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent.  Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well, and it'll presumably have more extra features.  So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.)  If you haven't seen it, check this version out.

Answer: extraordinarily odd movie

<hl> Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. <hl> However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent. Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical. In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, "It's not scary." well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast. Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that. Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good. There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome. This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well , and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out.

Dawn of the Dead is a <hl> extraordinarily odd movie <hl>, which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent.Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical.In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, "It's not scary." well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast.Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that.Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good.There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome.This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well, and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out.

Dawn of the Dead is a <hl> extraordinarily odd movie <hl> , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead.


Question: How do yo rate the dvd of the tv?

One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases. The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless.The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In "You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes.In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection.

Answer: stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases

One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. <hl> The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases . <hl> The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless. The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In "You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes. In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection.

One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright <hl> stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases <hl>. The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless.The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In "You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes.In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection.

The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright <hl> stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases <hl> .