Question: How is the plot?

If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken!  This movie was really entertaining!  Even though the plot could have been better, the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by!  I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV.  I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way.  Everything has a cause and effect.  I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film.  Bill Paxton gives a great performance too.  All in all, this is a mighty good flick!  Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars.  Otherwise, I highly recommend this one!

Answer: the plot could have been better

If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken! This movie was really entertaining! <hl> Even though the plot could have been better , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by! <hl> I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV. I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way. Everything has a cause and effect. I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film. Bill Paxton gives a great performance too. All in all, this is a mighty good flick! Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars. Otherwise, I highly recommend this one!

If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken! This movie was really entertaining! Even though <hl> the plot could have been better <hl>, the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by! I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV. I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way. Everything has a cause and effect. I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film. Bill Paxton gives a great performance too. All in all, this is a mighty good flick! Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars. Otherwise, I highly recommend this one!

Even though <hl> the plot could have been better <hl> , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by!


Question: How is your own personality?

Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. The characters are lovable :-)

Answer: The characters are lovable

The characters are lovable :-)

Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. <hl> The characters are lovable :-) <hl>

Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. <hl> The characters are lovable <hl> :-)


Question: What is the theme of the film?

After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of "Carrie" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as "The're all gonna laugh at you" or "I can see your dirty pillows" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)!

Answer: "Carrie"

<hl> After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of "Carrie" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. <hl> The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as "The're all gonna laugh at you" or "I can see your dirty pillows" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)!

After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of <hl> "Carrie" <hl> that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as "The're all gonna laugh at you" or "I can see your dirty pillows" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)!


Question: How do you like the plot?

The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all.

Answer: There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries

The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. <hl> There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. <hl> But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all.

The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. <hl> There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries <hl> on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all.


Question: How is the quality of the show?

I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this.  What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime.  The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché.  Lizard men eat rat people,  A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc.  Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop.  This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people.  This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one.  There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans.  Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop.  There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner.  If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen.  Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist.  The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess.  His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him.  It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors.

Answer: the show could have gotten interesting

I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature. I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland. I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. <hl> There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. <hl> If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on. More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors.

I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt <hl> the show could have gotten interesting <hl> but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors.


Question: What is the most popular series?

I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand.

Answer: watching Galactica

<hl> I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. <hl> I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand.

I have been <hl> watching Galactica <hl> for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand.


Question: How is movie?

Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs.Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short.It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man.The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is.He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast.He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him.One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself.However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado.When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz.The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora.The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind.When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival.His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled.Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest.The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll.When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it.Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her.As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south.Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora.Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball.It makes Theodora enraged.She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch.The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a  variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins.The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City.The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field.Glinda lays a low"fog"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep.However two grab and whisk away Glinda.The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back.He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard.The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken.The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches.Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle.There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys.The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss.The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done.Franco was terribly miscast.His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role.This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth.Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to "bring it".He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him.As with many a Sam"Evil Dead"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role.He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr.Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role.Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before.The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film.Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City.In the background in a field,is the"horse of a different colour".The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that.Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen.Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour.The picture was clear and crisp.As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras.All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man,this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars.

Answer: this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars

Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs. Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short. It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man. The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is. He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast. He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him. One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself. However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado. When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz. The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora. The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind. When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival. His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled. Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest. The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll. When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it. Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her. As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south. Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora. Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball. It makes Theodora enraged. She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch. The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins. The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City. The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field. Glinda lays a low"fog"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep. However two grab and whisk away Glinda. The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back. He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard. The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken. The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches. Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle. There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys. The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss. The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done. Franco was terribly miscast. His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role. This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth. Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to "bring it". He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him. As with many a Sam"Evil Dead"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role. He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr. Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role. Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before. The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film. Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City. In the background in a field,is the"horse of a different colour". The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that. Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen. Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour. The picture was clear and crisp. As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras. <hl> All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars . <hl>

Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs.Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short.It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man.The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is.He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast.He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him.One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself.However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado.When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz.The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora.The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind.When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival.His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled.Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest.The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll.When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it.Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her.As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south.Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora.Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball.It makes Theodora enraged.She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch.The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins.The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City.The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field.Glinda lays a low"fog"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep.However two grab and whisk away Glinda.The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back.He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard.The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken.The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches.Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle.There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys.The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss.The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done.Franco was terribly miscast.His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role.This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth.Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to "bring it".He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him.As with many a Sam"Evil Dead"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role.He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr.Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role.Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before.The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film.Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City.In the background in a field,is the"horse of a different colour".The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that.Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen.Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour.The picture was clear and crisp.As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras.All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man,<hl> this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars <hl>.

All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, <hl> this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars <hl> .


Question: How was the scene?

"King Kong" is brilliant! The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since "The Lord Of The Rings" series and outside of "The Lord Of The Rings" series! One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for "The Lord Of The Rings" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade "King Kong" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing.

Answer: The Lord Of The Rings

"King Kong" is brilliant! <hl> The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since " The Lord Of The Rings " series and outside of "The Lord Of The Rings" series! <hl> One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for "The Lord Of The Rings" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade "King Kong" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing.

"King Kong" is brilliant! The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since "<hl> The Lord Of The Rings <hl>" series and outside of "The Lord Of The Rings" series! One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for "The Lord Of The Rings" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade "King Kong" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing.

The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since " <hl> The Lord Of The Rings <hl> " series and outside of "The Lord Of The Rings" series!


Question: How did you like the music?

Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time.There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. "One Jump Ahead", "Friend Like Me", and "Prince Ali" delight and amuse, while the "One Jump Ahead" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping "A Whole New World" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song.My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight!

Answer: Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous

Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time. There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. <hl> Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. <hl> "One Jump Ahead", "Friend Like Me", and "Prince Ali" delight and amuse, while the "One Jump Ahead" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping "A Whole New World" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song. My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight!

Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time.There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. <hl> Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous <hl> -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. "One Jump Ahead", "Friend Like Me", and "Prince Ali" delight and amuse, while the "One Jump Ahead" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping "A Whole New World" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song.My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight!


Question: How fun  is the story?

I was very suprised that this film really strayed from "Pitch Black."  That film was exciting, scary, and really fun.  I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun.  This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside.  The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously.  Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along.  The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them.  Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting.

Answer: very suprised that this film

<hl> I was very suprised that this film really strayed from "Pitch Black." <hl> That film was exciting, scary, and really fun. I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun. This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside. The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously. Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along. The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them. Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting.

I was <hl> very suprised that this film <hl> really strayed from "Pitch Black." That film was exciting, scary, and really fun. I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun. This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside. The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously. Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along. The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them. Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting.


Question: How is it review?

The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise.Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled "Firefly". They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can. They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot "Serenity" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start.I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat.I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term "space western", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the "space western" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in "The Train Job". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, "Serenity"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days.Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead.All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series.Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships.

Answer: and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can

The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise. Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled "Firefly". <hl> They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can . <hl> They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot "Serenity" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start. I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat. I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term "space western", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the "space western" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in "The Train Job". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, "Serenity"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days. Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead. All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series. Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships.

The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise.Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled "Firefly". They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), <hl> and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can <hl>. They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot "Serenity" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start.I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat.I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term "space western", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the "space western" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in "The Train Job". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, "Serenity"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days.Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead.All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series.Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships.

They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), <hl> and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can <hl> .


Question: How inmersive is the ending scene?

....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement.I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed "movie-buff" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or "artsy" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater.Regardless, I decided to "cave in" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and "cool" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones.The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore....pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect "Bond movie").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig.I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some!

Answer: to be disagreement

<hl> ....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. <hl> You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed "movie-buff" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or "artsy" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater. Regardless, I decided to "cave in" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and "cool" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones. The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore.... pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect "Bond movie").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig. I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some!

....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound <hl> to be disagreement <hl>.I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed "movie-buff" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or "artsy" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater.Regardless, I decided to "cave in" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and "cool" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones.The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore....pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect "Bond movie").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig.I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some!

....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound <hl> to be disagreement <hl> .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen.


Question: How is it the set?

Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution?  And OK, the sets were stunning, and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life.  But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance.  And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy.  It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused.  Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette.

Answer: the sets were stunning

Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution? <hl> And OK, the sets were stunning , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life. <hl> But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance. And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused. Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette.

Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution? And OK, <hl> the sets were stunning <hl>, and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life. But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance. And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused. Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette.

And OK, <hl> the sets were stunning <hl> , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life.


Question: How is the movie?

I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review. BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people "expect" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and "update it" for "our times". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly.It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like "Signs", lots of "family hiding out from the big bad aliens".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like "it's stupid", or "this won't make it a classic" or "what a copout". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that "is thier undoing" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff.All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays.

Answer: the movie as the format for my review

<hl> I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review . <hl> BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people "expect" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and "update it" for "our times". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly. It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like "Signs", lots of "family hiding out from the big bad aliens".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like "it's stupid", or "this won't make it a classic" or "what a copout". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that "is thier undoing" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff. All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays.

I'll address some specific issues with <hl> the movie as the format for my review <hl>. BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people "expect" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and "update it" for "our times". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly.It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like "Signs", lots of "family hiding out from the big bad aliens".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like "it's stupid", or "this won't make it a classic" or "what a copout". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that "is thier undoing" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff.All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays.

I'll address some specific issues with <hl> the movie as the format for my review <hl> .


Question: Is it a good story?

I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story, the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good.There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true.

Answer: the movie stays true to the story

I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. <hl> Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. <hl> The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good. There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true.

I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. Yes, the book is better, but <hl> the movie stays true to the story <hl>, the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good.There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true.

Yes, the book is better, but <hl> the movie stays true to the story <hl> , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry.


Question: What do you think about story?

Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features.There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable.Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous.Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it.

Answer: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it

Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features. There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable. Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous. <hl> Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it . <hl>

Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features.There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable.Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous.Conclusion: <hl> worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it <hl>.

Conclusion: <hl> worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it <hl> .


Question: Was the dialogue nice?

Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton.Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards.Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, "Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue. Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS.

Answer: but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, "Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue

Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton. Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards. Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. <hl> Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, "Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue . <hl> Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS.

Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton.Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards.Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, <hl> but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, "Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue <hl>. Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS.

Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, <hl> but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, "Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue <hl> .


Question: How is the picture?

All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. The picture is clean and the sound is perfect. They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit.

Answer: The picture is clean and the sound is perfect

All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. <hl> The picture is clean and the sound is perfect . <hl> They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit.

All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. <hl> The picture is clean and the sound is perfect <hl>. They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit.

<hl> The picture is clean and the sound is perfect <hl> .