Question: How is the scenery?

I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong.This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple.There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you.The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood.The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other.The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie.An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements.If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love.

Answer: The cinematography is breathtaking at times

I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong. This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple. There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you. The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. <hl> The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood. <hl> The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other. The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie. An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements. If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love.

I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong.This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple.There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you.The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. <hl> The cinematography is breathtaking at times <hl> and the music truly reflects the mood.The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other.The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie.An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements.If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love.


Question: Can you watch an episode at Christmas?

I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching "Mary Tyler Moore" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season.When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms.  Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place.  First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner ("Mr. Asner", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in "Divorce Isn't Everything", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season.Second, although the "making of" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look!

Answer: I have seen enough

<hl> I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. <hl> Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching "Mary Tyler Moore" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season. When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms. Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place. First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner ("Mr. Asner", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in "Divorce Isn't Everything", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season. Second, although the "making of" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look!

I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, <hl> I have seen enough <hl> of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching "Mary Tyler Moore" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season.When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms. Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place. First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner ("Mr. Asner", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in "Divorce Isn't Everything", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season.Second, although the "making of" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look!


Question: Is the packaging excellent?

I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching "TV or Not TV", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor. I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes!

Answer: the quality was poor

I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. <hl> When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching "TV or Not TV", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor . <hl> I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes!

I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching "TV or Not TV", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that <hl> the quality was poor <hl>. I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes!

When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching "TV or Not TV", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that <hl> the quality was poor <hl> .


Question: Is this show have a remake?

This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when  mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

Answer: This series is great

<hl> This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. <hl> The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl>, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.

<hl> This series is great <hl> , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.


Question: How is it the movie?

"World Trade Center" is brilliant! Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since "Platoon" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for "Born On The Fourth Of July" (1989) & Best Screenplay for "Midnight Express" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake "Don't Look Now" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since "Salvador" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on "Born On The Fourth Of July" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since "Salvador") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since "Any Given Sunday" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since "Wall Street" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since "Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since "The Doors" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on "Alexander" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on "Born On The Fourth Of July") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as "United 93" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night.

Answer: is brilliant

"World Trade Center" is brilliant !

<hl> "World Trade Center" is brilliant ! <hl> Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since "Platoon" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for "Born On The Fourth Of July" (1989) & Best Screenplay for "Midnight Express" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake "Don't Look Now" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since "Salvador" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on "Born On The Fourth Of July" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since "Salvador") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since "Any Given Sunday" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since "Wall Street" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since "Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since "The Doors" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on "Alexander" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on "Born On The Fourth Of July") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as "United 93" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night.

"World Trade Center" <hl> is brilliant <hl>! Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since "Platoon" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for "Born On The Fourth Of July" (1989) & Best Screenplay for "Midnight Express" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake "Don't Look Now" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since "Salvador" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on "Born On The Fourth Of July" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since "Salvador") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since "Any Given Sunday" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since "Wall Street" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since "Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since "The Doors" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on "Alexander" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on "Born On The Fourth Of July") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as "United 93" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night.

"World Trade Center" <hl> is brilliant <hl> !


Question: How is it content?

I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection.Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray.Which brings me to an important point.The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks! We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems!

Answer: Horror classics

I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection. Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray. Which brings me to an important point. The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. <hl> I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks! <hl> We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems!

I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection.Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray.Which brings me to an important point.The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal <hl> Horror classics <hl> all of the time on 1080p disks! We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems!


Question: How much did you like the soundtrack of the Tenebrae movie directed by Dario Argento?

Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that.Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash.From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more.All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow....

Answer: bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent

Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that. Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash. From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). <hl> It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). <hl> These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more. All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow....

Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that.Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash.From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). It's one of those films that will either <hl> bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent <hl> (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more.All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow....


Question: What is the price for shipping a plot?

Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son.

Answer: this was the story

Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. <hl> Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son. <hl>

Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - <hl> this was the story <hl> I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son.


Question: How is the movie?

DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE?  I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film.  Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring.  But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie.  Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies.  There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag.  There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'.  I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them.

Answer: this movie is suitable for children

DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film. Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring. <hl> But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie. <hl> Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies. There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag. There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'. I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them.

DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film. Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring. But the reason I do not believe <hl> this movie is suitable for children <hl> (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie. Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies. There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag. There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'. I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them.


Question: Is the movie easy to understand?

While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie.  He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company.  Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan.While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel.  The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot.  Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships.  Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company.  From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land.Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic.  I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself.  There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do.To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit.  It is not a tight, cohesive story.  Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD.  This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it.  In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode.Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson.  Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray.  She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was "about."  It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line:  if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out.  It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it.

Answer: this is a film that meanders a bit

While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie. He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company. Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan. While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel. The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot. Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships. Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company. From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land. Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic. I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself. There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do. <hl> To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit . <hl> It is not a tight, cohesive story. Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD. This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it. In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode. Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson. Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray. She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was "about." It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line: if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out. It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it.

While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie. He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company. Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan.While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel. The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot. Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships. Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company. From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land.Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic. I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself. There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do.To be sure, <hl> this is a film that meanders a bit <hl>. It is not a tight, cohesive story. Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD. This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it. In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode.Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson. Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray. She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was "about." It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line: if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out. It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it.

To be sure, <hl> this is a film that meanders a bit <hl> .


Question: Is this series good and excelent?

At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews.  Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews.  I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show.  And I have to vote with the majority...this show is OUTSTANDING!

Answer: this show is OUTSTANDING

this show is OUTSTANDING !

At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews. Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews. I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show. And I have to vote with the majority... <hl> this show is OUTSTANDING ! <hl>

At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews. Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews. I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show. And I have to vote with the majority...<hl> this show is OUTSTANDING <hl>!


Question: How is the scene like?

Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction.Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived.The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as "The Crazy Guy" is particularly effective.And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven.There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any.There is no exception here.

Answer: Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction

<hl> Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention. <hl> The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived. The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as "The Crazy Guy" is particularly effective. And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven. There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any. There is no exception here.

<hl> Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction <hl>.Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived.The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as "The Crazy Guy" is particularly effective.And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven.There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any.There is no exception here.

<hl> Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction <hl> .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.


Question: How is the story?

I've read the book and watched the movie. The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg. Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again.

Answer: The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg

I've read the book and watched the movie. <hl> The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg . <hl> Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again.

I've read the book and watched the movie. <hl> The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg <hl>. Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again.

<hl> The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg <hl> .


Question: How would you describe the characters in the movie?

I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story.I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago.The characters are very complex and compelling.

Answer: The characters are very complex and compelling

I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story. I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago. <hl> The characters are very complex and compelling . <hl>

I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story.I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago.<hl> The characters are very complex and compelling <hl>.

<hl> The characters are very complex and compelling <hl> .


Question: What is the resume of this film?

Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. It's an awesome film, to say the least. It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not.

Answer: It's an awesome film

Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. <hl> It's an awesome film , to say the least. <hl> It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not.

Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. <hl> It's an awesome film <hl>, to say the least. It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not.

<hl> It's an awesome film <hl> , to say the least.


Question: How much action does the movie have?

King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the "dark forces" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner.

Answer: has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the "dark forces" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner.

King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. <hl> Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the "dark forces" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. <hl>

King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong <hl> has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the "dark forces" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. <hl>


Question: How are images are clean?

5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles. If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'.On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode.  This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray.  You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem.  Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc.That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set.  Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering.  It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set.  All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback.The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set.I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2.  I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care.  If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this.  This is one double-dip that is really worth it.

Answer: the incorrect subtitles

5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. <hl> I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles . <hl> If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'. On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode. This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray. You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem. Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc. That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set. Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering. It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set. All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback. The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set. I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2. I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care. If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this. This is one double-dip that is really worth it.

5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has <hl> the incorrect subtitles <hl>. If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'.On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode. This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray. You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem. Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc.That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set. Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering. It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set. All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback.The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set.I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2. I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care. If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this. This is one double-dip that is really worth it.

I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has <hl> the incorrect subtitles <hl> .


Question: What is the best scene in the movie?

This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels.  The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent.  The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it.  It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves.  Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic.  The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews.  It is hardly credible that they were antisemites.  They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple.  They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion.The film is both detailed and excruciating.  It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind.  It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close.  The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability.  It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force.  The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross.  Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha.Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself.  The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross.  There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground.  The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution.In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls.  It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions.Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

Answer: good

<hl> This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. <hl> The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion. The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha. Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution. In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions. Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

This is a <hl> good <hl> film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion.The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha.Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution.In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions.Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico


Question: How is the story?

This movie was ok. It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating.

Answer: the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating

This movie was ok. <hl> It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating . <hl>

This movie was ok. It started out strong but when <hl> the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating <hl>.

It started out strong but when <hl> the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating <hl> .


Question: What is the quality of the movie?

Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur, really.  There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends.  Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length.Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter.  But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer.  The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum.  You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did.  The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to.  I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him.That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful!  There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor.  I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes.  The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream!  If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection.The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills!

Answer: Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur

Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really.

<hl> Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really. <hl> There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends. Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length. Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter. But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer. The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum. You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did. The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to. I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him. That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful! There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor. I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes. The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream! If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection. The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills!

<hl> Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur <hl>, really. There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends. Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length.Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter. But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer. The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum. You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did. The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to. I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him.That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful! There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor. I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes. The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream! If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection.The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills!

<hl> Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur <hl> , really.


Question: What is the action of the movie?

(Spoilers)  The bad:  Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu?  I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets.  Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy?  You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right.  And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested.  I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's "Tell" but will let them be.  I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity.  But that's not the point.  If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me.  Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel.  Don't do both.The Good:  Craig as a killer.  He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part.  I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done...but this is his first movie.  Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond.  I guess we'll have to see in the next.  But I am interested.  I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it.Overall:  I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a "real" movie, or a tribute to the past.  Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun.  I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting.  I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel.

Answer: kung fu

<hl> (Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu ? <hl> I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets. Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy? You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right. And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested. I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's "Tell" but will let them be. I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity. But that's not the point. If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me. Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel. Don't do both. The Good: Craig as a killer. He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part. I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done... but this is his first movie. Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond. I guess we'll have to see in the next. But I am interested. I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it. Overall: I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a "real" movie, or a tribute to the past. Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun. I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting. I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel.

(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows <hl> kung fu <hl>? I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets. Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy? You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right. And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested. I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's "Tell" but will let them be. I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity. But that's not the point. If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me. Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel. Don't do both.The Good: Craig as a killer. He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part. I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done...but this is his first movie. Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond. I guess we'll have to see in the next. But I am interested. I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it.Overall: I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a "real" movie, or a tribute to the past. Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun. I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting. I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel.

(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows <hl> kung fu <hl> ?


Question: What do you think about plot?

During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters "I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me." Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!!

Answer: I think the film is losing it's originality

During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters "I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me." Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. <hl> I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! <hl> He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!!

During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters "I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me." Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. <hl> I think the film is losing it's originality <hl> as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!!