Question: How is movie?

The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before. They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell "nooo" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible.

Answer: these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds

<hl> The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before. <hl> They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell "nooo" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible.

The blu-ray format really sharpens <hl> these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds <hl> that were never noticed before. They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell "nooo" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible.


Question: How good is the action?

I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it.  If you know his work, you will see his influence.  All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent.  A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn!

Answer: A good movie

I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it. If you know his work, you will see his influence. All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent. <hl> A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn! <hl>

I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it. If you know his work, you will see his influence. All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent. <hl> A good movie <hl> to watc with a big bucket of popcorn!


Question: How is the movie?

This movie was pretty good, but not nearly as good as the first one.  There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie.  There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better.  The special effects, sound, acting, all great.  This one is just not as fun as the first movie was.  Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static.  It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick.I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;)

Answer: This movie was pretty good

<hl> This movie was pretty good , but not nearly as good as the first one. <hl> There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie. There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better. The special effects, sound, acting, all great. This one is just not as fun as the first movie was. Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static. It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick. I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;)

<hl> This movie was pretty good <hl>, but not nearly as good as the first one. There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie. There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better. The special effects, sound, acting, all great. This one is just not as fun as the first movie was. Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static. It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick.I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;)

<hl> This movie was pretty good <hl> , but not nearly as good as the first one.


Question: How is the tension?

I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right.There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content.Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm.No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is.In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme.I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else.

Answer: the tension and suspense is quite high

I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right. There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content. Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm. No Country is a good film. <hl> It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller <hl> but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is. In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme. I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else.

I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right.There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content.Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm.No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where <hl> the tension and suspense is quite high <hl> and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is.In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme.I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else.


Question: What is story?

When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". It is about a woman named  Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name.Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her.Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks.

Answer: It is about a woman named  Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders

When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". <hl> It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). <hl> What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name. Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her. Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks.

When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". <hl> It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders <hl> (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name.Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her.Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks.


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

Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films. The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you.

Answer: the Alien films

<hl> Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films . <hl> The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you.

Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of <hl> the Alien films <hl>. The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you.

Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of <hl> the Alien films <hl> .


Question: How is this filmso good?

At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone.  The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects.In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters.  Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy.Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail.  Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power.  The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest.  Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish.This film deserves SIX STARS.

Answer: This film deserves SIX STARS

This film deserves SIX STARS .

At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone. The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects. In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters. Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy. Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail. Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power. The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest. Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish. <hl> This film deserves SIX STARS . <hl>

At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone. The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects.In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters. Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy.Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail. Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power. The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest. Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish.<hl> This film deserves SIX STARS <hl>.

<hl> This film deserves SIX STARS <hl> .


Question: How is the film?

Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent!  The movie is sad and tragic, enthralling and entertaining.  Loved it.

Answer: The movie is sad and tragic

Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent! <hl> The movie is sad and tragic , enthralling and entertaining. <hl> Loved it.

Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent! <hl> The movie is sad and tragic <hl>, enthralling and entertaining. Loved it.

<hl> The movie is sad and tragic <hl> , enthralling and entertaining.


Question: How is the show?

I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find!

Answer: loved discovering

<hl> I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. <hl> Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find!

I <hl> loved discovering <hl> this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find!


Question: How is the quality of episode?

In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day.  Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest.  It started my love for techlogy and computers.  I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today.Well getting on to the review.  I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console.  My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek:  The Original Series - Season 1.  On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing.  I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me.  Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing.  I started out with one of my favorite episodes "Where No Man Has Gone Before".  This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's.  It's a great but tragic story too.  Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars.  I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies.The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot.  It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff.  You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera.  Blackburn says he rarely got out of character.  Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil.If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television.  I would add this to your collection without hesitation.  I hope they do a similiar restoration to the "Twilight Zone" series and "The Next Generation".

Answer: these episodes look simply amazing

In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day. Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest. It started my love for techlogy and computers. I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today. Well getting on to the review. I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console. My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1. <hl> On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing . <hl> I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me. Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing. I started out with one of my favorite episodes "Where No Man Has Gone Before". This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's. It's a great but tragic story too. Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars. I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies. The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot. It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff. You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera. Blackburn says he rarely got out of character. Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil. If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television. I would add this to your collection without hesitation. I hope they do a similiar restoration to the "Twilight Zone" series and "The Next Generation".

In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day. Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest. It started my love for techlogy and computers. I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today.Well getting on to the review. I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console. My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1. On a big screen TV <hl> these episodes look simply amazing <hl>. I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me. Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing. I started out with one of my favorite episodes "Where No Man Has Gone Before". This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's. It's a great but tragic story too. Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars. I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies.The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot. It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff. You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera. Blackburn says he rarely got out of character. Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil.If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television. I would add this to your collection without hesitation. I hope they do a similiar restoration to the "Twilight Zone" series and "The Next Generation".

On a big screen TV <hl> these episodes look simply amazing <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching.  The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great.  I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate.  If you saw the first movie you need to see this one.  If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie.

Answer: The story is full of holes

Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching. <hl> The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great. <hl> I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate. If you saw the first movie you need to see this one. If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie.

Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching. <hl> The story is full of holes <hl> and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great. I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate. If you saw the first movie you need to see this one. If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie.


Question: How is it the movie?

"Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans.  With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan.  Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in "The Matrix" being lauded as the "new hope" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars.  When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be "Titanic in space", my interest waned even more.  However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences.  So how did the unfortunately named "Attack of the Clones" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty.  The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all.  The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking.  Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd.  Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie.  As these two are supposed to be the "romantic leads", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie.  Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players.  Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner.  (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett).  Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie.The good news is that the movie works on a "macro" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned.  Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a "car chase" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones.  Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda.The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III.  In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku.  While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her.  A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member.  Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother.  Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her.  When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder.  Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic.  With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku.  The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings.Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking.  The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well.  The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print.  The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile.  The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds.  The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers.  The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep.It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted.  The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga.  But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers.  If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already.  For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents.

Answer: the

"Star Wars: Episode I- <hl> The Phantom Menace" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans. <hl> With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan. Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in "The Matrix" being lauded as the "new hope" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars. When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be "Titanic in space", my interest waned even more. However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences. So how did the unfortunately named "Attack of the Clones" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty. The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all. The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking. Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd. Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie. As these two are supposed to be the "romantic leads", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie. Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players. Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner. (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett). Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie. The good news is that the movie works on a "macro" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned. Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a "car chase" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones. Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda. The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III. In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku. While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her. A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother. Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her. When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder. Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic. With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku. The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings. Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking. The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well. The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print. The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile. The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds. The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers. The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep. It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted. The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga. But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already. For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents.

"Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace" was one of <hl> the <hl> most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans. With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan. Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in "The Matrix" being lauded as the "new hope" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars. When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be "Titanic in space", my interest waned even more. However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences. So how did the unfortunately named "Attack of the Clones" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty. The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all. The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking. Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd. Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie. As these two are supposed to be the "romantic leads", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie. Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players. Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner. (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett). Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie.The good news is that the movie works on a "macro" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned. Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a "car chase" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones. Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda.The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III. In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku. While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her. A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother. Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her. When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder. Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic. With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku. The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings.Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking. The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well. The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print. The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile. The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds. The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers. The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep.It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted. The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga. But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already. For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents.


Question: How is the episode?

This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. "The Wild, Wild West" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end.Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza," a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like "I-Spy," "The Man From UNCLE," and "The Avengers," science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea," and sophomoric camp like "Batman."  Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments.This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like "The Wild, Wild West."

Answer: Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza

This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. "The Wild, Wild West" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end. Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. <hl> It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as " Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza ," a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like "I-Spy," "The Man From UNCLE," and "The Avengers," science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea," and sophomoric camp like "Batman." <hl> Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments. This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like "The Wild, Wild West."

This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. "The Wild, Wild West" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end.Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as "<hl> Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza <hl>," a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like "I-Spy," "The Man From UNCLE," and "The Avengers," science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea," and sophomoric camp like "Batman." Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments.This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like "The Wild, Wild West."

It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as " <hl> Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza <hl> ," a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like "I-Spy," "The Man From UNCLE," and "The Avengers," science fiction like "Star Trek" and "Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea," and sophomoric camp like "Batman."


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

Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries ("Band of Brothers") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences.  Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be.  But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers.  We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films.Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down.  While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story.  We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia.  But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself.Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself).  Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters.So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth.  But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on.  There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare.  In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context.  And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling.  But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire.  Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died.  How did the Somalis die?  Were they all killed by Americans?  Did warring factions kill each other?  It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.)

Answer: it fails to establish any real sense of character

Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries ("Band of Brothers") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences. Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be. But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers. We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films. Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down. <hl> While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story. <hl> We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia. But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself. Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself). Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters. So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth. But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on. There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare. In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context. And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling. But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire. Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died. How did the Somalis die? Were they all killed by Americans? Did warring factions kill each other? It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.)

Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries ("Band of Brothers") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences. Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be. But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers. We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films.Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down. While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, <hl> it fails to establish any real sense of character <hl> or story. We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia. But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself.Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself). Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters.So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth. But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on. There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare. In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context. And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling. But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire. Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died. How did the Somalis die? Were they all killed by Americans? Did warring factions kill each other? It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.)


Question: How good was the cinematography?

First, let me say "Bravo Sophia Coppola!"  She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing.  Second, I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography.  This film is visually stunning.  Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances.  They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles.  Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo.If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch "Lost in Translation."

Answer: think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography

First, let me say "Bravo Sophia Coppola!" She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing. Second <hl> , I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography . <hl> This film is visually stunning. Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances. They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles. Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo. If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch "Lost in Translation."

First, let me say "Bravo Sophia Coppola!" She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing. Second, I <hl> think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography <hl>. This film is visually stunning. Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances. They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles. Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo.If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch "Lost in Translation."

, I <hl> think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography <hl> .


Question: Does the movie great to watch?

Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews.  Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases.  The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished.  The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one.  In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus.  He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked.  He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world.  But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie.  Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him,  and it presents a story about revenge.  This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep.  After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge.  On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it.

Answer: great performances from the whole

Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews. Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases. The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. <hl> The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished. <hl> The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one. In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus. He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked. He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world. But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie. Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him, and it presents a story about revenge. This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep. After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge. On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it.

Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews. Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases. The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. The movie itself features <hl> great performances from the whole <hl> cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished. The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one. In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus. He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked. He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world. But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie. Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him, and it presents a story about revenge. This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep. After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge. On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it.


Question: What character is perfect for the movie?

This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths. The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story.  Your time and money will be well spent on this series.

Answer: The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths

This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. <hl> The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths . <hl> The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story. Your time and money will be well spent on this series.

This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. <hl> The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths <hl>. The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story. Your time and money will be well spent on this series.

<hl> The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths <hl> .


Question: How you would describe this episode edition?

Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it.  I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit.  Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin.  The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity.  Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures.  The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it.Thank you for reading my review.

Answer: Firefly is a great show

<hl> Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it. <hl> I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit. Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin. The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it. Thank you for reading my review.

<hl> Firefly is a great show <hl> that I knew nothing about before I saw it. I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit. Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin. The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it.Thank you for reading my review.


Question: How is the quality of story?

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

Answer: The movie is dark, action is heavy in places

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. <hl> The movie is dark, action is heavy in places , but the writing was blah. <hl> The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. <hl> The movie is dark, action is heavy in places <hl>, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

<hl> The movie is dark, action is heavy in places <hl> , but the writing was blah.


Question: What is your favorite character?

Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair.  Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either.  Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did.  Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching.  Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level.  Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor.Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon.  But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture.  Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle.  No one character is overbearing or underwhelming; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is.  In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic.For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings.  I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children.

Answer: No one character is overbearing or underwhelming

Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair. Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either. Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did. Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching. Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level. Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor. Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon. But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture. Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle. <hl> No one character is overbearing or underwhelming ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is. <hl> In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic. For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings. I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children.

Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair. Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either. Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did. Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching. Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level. Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor.Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon. But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture. Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle. <hl> No one character is overbearing or underwhelming <hl>; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is. In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic.For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings. I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children.

<hl> No one character is overbearing or underwhelming <hl> ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is.


Question: What is the plot of the scene?

Answer: Some scenes were gross and inappropriate

<hl> Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed. <hl>

<hl> Some scenes were gross and inappropriate <hl> particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed.


Question: How was the movie?

I love this movie. Great movie for the whole family. Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter.

Answer: Great movie for the whole family

Great movie for the whole family .

I love this movie. <hl> Great movie for the whole family . <hl> Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter.

I love this movie. <hl> Great movie for the whole family <hl>. Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter.

<hl> Great movie for the whole family <hl> .


Question: How is the actor?

The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. Her acting wasn't any better. And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie.

Answer: Her acting wasn't any better

Her acting wasn't any better .

The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. <hl> Her acting wasn't any better . <hl> And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie.

The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. <hl> Her acting wasn't any better <hl>. And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie.

<hl> Her acting wasn't any better <hl> .


Question: Does this movie have good or rubbish effects?

I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad, but I think there was too  much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too  fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity  so they decided to put three movies in one.

Answer: have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad

<hl> I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one. <hl>

I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I <hl> have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad <hl>, but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one.

I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I <hl> have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad <hl> , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one.