Question: Is the villain main cast in the movie?

Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. "L.A. COnfidential" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances.Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, "L.A. Confidential" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this.Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, "L.A. Confidental" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter.The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly.We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first "Special Edition" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story."Whatever You Desire" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. "Sunlight to Shadows" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. "The Cast" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative "unknowns"-Pearce and Crowe. "From Book to Screen" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--"L.A. Confidential" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- "Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive"Chet Baker -- "Look for the Silver Lining"Betty Hutton -- "Hit the Road to Dreamland"Kay Starr -- "Wheel of Fortune"Jackie Gleason -- "But Not For Me"Dean Martin -- "Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.

Answer: snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story."Whatever You Desire" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. "Sunlight to Shadows" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. "The Cast" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative

Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. "L.A. COnfidential" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances. Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, "L.A. Confidential" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this. Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, "L.A. Confidental" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter. The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly. <hl> We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first "Special Edition" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story."Whatever You Desire" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. "Sunlight to Shadows" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. "The Cast" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative "unknowns"-Pearce and Crowe. <hl> "From Book to Screen" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--"L.A. Confidential" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- "Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive"Chet Baker -- "Look for the Silver Lining"Betty Hutton -- "Hit the Road to Dreamland"Kay Starr -- "Wheel of Fortune"Jackie Gleason -- "But Not For Me"Dean Martin -- "Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.

Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. "L.A. COnfidential" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances.Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, "L.A. Confidential" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this.Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, "L.A. Confidental" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter.The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly.We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first "Special Edition" when DVDs were still being released in <hl> snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story."Whatever You Desire" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. "Sunlight to Shadows" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. "The Cast" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative <hl> "unknowns"-Pearce and Crowe. "From Book to Screen" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--"L.A. Confidential" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- "Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive"Chet Baker -- "Look for the Silver Lining"Betty Hutton -- "Hit the Road to Dreamland"Kay Starr -- "Wheel of Fortune"Jackie Gleason -- "But Not For Me"Dean Martin -- "Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.


Question: What is the quality of cinematography?

Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film.  Still, I loved it.  It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart.  The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic.  Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis.  The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense. The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house.  The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes.  Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection.

Answer: The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense

Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film. Still, I loved it. It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart. The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic. Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis. <hl> The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense . <hl> The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house. The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes. Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection.

Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film. Still, I loved it. It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart. The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic. Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis. <hl> The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense <hl>. The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house. The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes. Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection.

<hl> The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense <hl> .


Question: What types of film they show in the travel?

"Spider-Man" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts.  There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex.  However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great.  "Spider-Man" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered.  For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough.Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane.  While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie.  Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection.  On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role.  Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman.  However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions.  I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed.  The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin.  He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character.The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics.  That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability.  In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense.Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features.  While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content.  You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set.Ultimately, "Spider-Man" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain.  It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick.  It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance, and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects.  In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy!

Answer: mixture of action, humor and romance

"Spider-Man" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts. There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex. However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great. "Spider-Man" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered. For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough. Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane. While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie. Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection. On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role. Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman. However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions. I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed. The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin. He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character. The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics. That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability. In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense. Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features. While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content. You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set. Ultimately, "Spider-Man" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain. It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick. <hl> It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects. <hl> In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy!

"Spider-Man" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts. There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex. However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great. "Spider-Man" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered. For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough.Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane. While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie. Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection. On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role. Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman. However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions. I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed. The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin. He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character.The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics. That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability. In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense.Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features. While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content. You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set.Ultimately, "Spider-Man" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain. It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick. It contains the perfect <hl> mixture of action, humor and romance <hl>, and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects. In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy!

It contains the perfect <hl> mixture of action, humor and romance <hl> , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects.


Question: How is the film?

This is simply the greatest war film ever made. Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and "pinging" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater.'Saving Private Ryan" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director.Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius.Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as "too" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear "ok" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why.

Answer: This is simply the greatest war film ever made

<hl> This is simply the greatest war film ever made . <hl> Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and "pinging" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater. 'Saving Private Ryan" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director. Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius. Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as "too" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear "ok" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why.

<hl> This is simply the greatest war film ever made <hl>. Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and "pinging" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater.'Saving Private Ryan" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director.Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius.Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as "too" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear "ok" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why.

<hl> This is simply the greatest war film ever made <hl> .


Question: How is character?

Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis!  You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers.  I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible.  Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided.  The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it.  Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting.

Answer: some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience

Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis! <hl> You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers. <hl> I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible. Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided. The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it. Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting.

Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis! You have to come up with <hl> some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience <hl> to pull for the ultimate evil-doers. I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible. Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided. The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it. Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting.


Question: What happens to the husband in the story?

'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter.  Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life.  Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage.  Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss.But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened.  But Linda remembers everything from the day before.  The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead.  Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter.The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent "doom-and-gloom" sounds.  It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not.  The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes.Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film.  It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie.  Rent before you buy.  Enjoy!

Answer: (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck)

'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter. <hl> Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life. <hl> Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage. Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss. But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened. But Linda remembers everything from the day before. The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead. Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter. The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent "doom-and-gloom" sounds. It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not. The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes. Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film. It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie. Rent before you buy. Enjoy!

'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter. Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim <hl> (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) <hl> have a happy life. Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage. Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss.But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened. But Linda remembers everything from the day before. The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead. Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter.The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent "doom-and-gloom" sounds. It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not. The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes.Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film. It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie. Rent before you buy. Enjoy!


Question: Do you have many friend?

Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough.  Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms.  Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a "muscular nerd," a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues.  Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in "glamour" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele.Set in a small town in rural Idaho, "Napoleon Dynamite" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office.  Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge.  This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite "fit in" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the "teen years."  One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are.Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy.  It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another "Revenge of the Nerds," placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations.  Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process.  It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them.  These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another.  As a result, "Napoleon Dynamite" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending.The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly.  Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world.  Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself.  As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery."Napoleon Dynamite" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it.

Answer: He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms

Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough. Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. <hl> He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms . <hl> Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a "muscular nerd," a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues. Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in "glamour" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele. Set in a small town in rural Idaho, "Napoleon Dynamite" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office. Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge. This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite "fit in" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the "teen years." One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are. Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy. It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another "Revenge of the Nerds," placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations. Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process. It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them. These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another. As a result, "Napoleon Dynamite" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending. The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly. Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world. Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself. As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery. "Napoleon Dynamite" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it.

Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough. Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. <hl> He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms <hl>. Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a "muscular nerd," a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues. Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in "glamour" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele.Set in a small town in rural Idaho, "Napoleon Dynamite" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office. Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge. This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite "fit in" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the "teen years." One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are.Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy. It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another "Revenge of the Nerds," placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations. Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process. It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them. These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another. As a result, "Napoleon Dynamite" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending.The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly. Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world. Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself. As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery."Napoleon Dynamite" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it.

<hl> He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms <hl> .


Question: How is the cast?

FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton, the original Batman and Batman Returns.This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too "Asian-martial artsy", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that.Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear.Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman.Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end).

Answer: the gothic creations of Tim Burton

FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. <hl> A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton , the original Batman and Batman Returns. <hl> This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too "Asian-martial artsy", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that. Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear. Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman. Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end).

FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from <hl> the gothic creations of Tim Burton <hl>, the original Batman and Batman Returns.This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too "Asian-martial artsy", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that.Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear.Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman.Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end).

A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from <hl> the gothic creations of Tim Burton <hl> , the original Batman and Batman Returns.


Question: Is this story about a cowboy?

Well, we knew he would win. Little suspense, except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see and I was therefore bored out of my socks.  Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it.

Answer: Little suspense

Well, we knew he would win. <hl> Little suspense , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see <hl> and I was therefore bored out of my socks. Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it.

Well, we knew he would win. <hl> Little suspense <hl>, except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see and I was therefore bored out of my socks. Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it.

<hl> Little suspense <hl> , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see


Question: How is the chemistry?

I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care.The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, "I missed you." She replies, matter-of-factly, "I missed you, too." The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.)."Mr. and Mrs. Smith" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show.My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie.Despite its flaws, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5.

Answer: works very well because of the amazing chemistry

I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. <hl> "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. <hl> The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care. The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, "I missed you." She replies, matter-of-factly, "I missed you, too." The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.)."Mr. and Mrs. Smith" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show. My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie. Despite its flaws, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5.

I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" <hl> works very well because of the amazing chemistry <hl> between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care.The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, "I missed you." She replies, matter-of-factly, "I missed you, too." The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.)."Mr. and Mrs. Smith" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show.My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie.Despite its flaws, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5.


Question: What is the quality of the movie?

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film.  I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there.  Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one.  I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start.  You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves.  What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake?  And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like.  "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered.  Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here.  I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing.  Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact.  It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus.  As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah.  Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter.  I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end.  There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal.  I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though.  The music, though, was awful.  I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie.  The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part.  There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to.  There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here.  There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times.  There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie.  It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance.  Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

Answer: dreadful horror film

<hl> From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film . <hl> I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie. I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them. I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic. Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it. When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film. All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a <hl> dreadful horror film <hl>. I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. "Frat Guy" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.

From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a <hl> dreadful horror film <hl> .


Question: What is the conflicting idea in this movie?

This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations. Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining!

Answer: those voilence movies

This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. <hl> Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations. <hl> Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining!

This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from <hl> those voilence movies <hl> & animations. Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining!


Question: How are picture?

The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear. The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying "As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!" The second disc has the rest of the movie.Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination.The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference.

Answer: The picture is fabulous

The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. <hl> The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear. <hl> The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying "As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!" The second disc has the rest of the movie. Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination. The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference.

The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. <hl> The picture is fabulous <hl> and the sound is very clear. The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying "As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!" The second disc has the rest of the movie.Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination.The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference.