Question: How is the plot?

I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways.I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around.This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. This movie has a terrible plot, horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time.

Answer: This movie has a terrible plot

I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways. I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around. This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. <hl> This movie has a terrible plot , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. <hl> Don't waste your time.

I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways.I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around.This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. <hl> This movie has a terrible plot <hl>, horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time.

<hl> This movie has a terrible plot <hl> , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development.


Question: How's the film?

I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content.  I was 7 years old.  Well, this movie left me scared for months.  Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is.  From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever.

Answer: Well, this movie left me scared for months

I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content. I was 7 years old. <hl> Well, this movie left me scared for months . <hl> Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is. From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever.

I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content. I was 7 years old. <hl> Well, this movie left me scared for months <hl>. Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is. From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever.

<hl> Well, this movie left me scared for months <hl> .


Question: How were the effects?

Its too bad because this film could have been great. The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing,  but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed.  The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building.

Answer: The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved

Its too bad because this film could have been great. <hl> The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. <hl> There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing, but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed. The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building.

Its too bad because this film could have been great. <hl> The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved <hl> , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing, but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed. The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building.


Question: How is the music?

Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!!  I'm biased because I LOVE musicals......but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this, simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented.  Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this.  John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number?  You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful.  It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar.  I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue.  I highly recommend this movie!

Answer: normally don't like musicals will enjoy this

Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!! I'm biased because I LOVE musicals...... <hl> but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented. <hl> Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this. John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number? You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful. It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue. I highly recommend this movie!

Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!! I'm biased because I LOVE musicals......but I believe that even those who <hl> normally don't like musicals will enjoy this <hl>, simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented. Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this. John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number? You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful. It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue. I highly recommend this movie!

but I believe that even those who <hl> normally don't like musicals will enjoy this <hl> , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented.


Question: Who represent this character?

What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed.  The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play.  The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving.The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls.  Too funny.A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense.  My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes.  Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!!

Answer: Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares

What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed. <hl> The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play. <hl> The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving. The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls. Too funny. A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense. My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes. Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!!

What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed. The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of <hl> Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares <hl> are a perfect match for the characters they play. The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving.The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls. Too funny.A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense. My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes. Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!!


Question: How is character?

If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature. I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine.

Answer: vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature

If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. <hl> Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature . <hl> I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine.

If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. Her character is strong, but just <hl> vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature <hl>. I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine.

Her character is strong, but just <hl> vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature <hl> .


Question: How is the quality of movie?

This movie was terrible.  I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end.

Answer: This movie was terrible

This movie was terrible .

<hl> This movie was terrible . <hl> I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end.

<hl> This movie was terrible <hl>. I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end.


Question: What is the plot of the movie?

A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title.  A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes.  This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made.  Happily, this is not the case with this movie.  This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about.  For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie.  Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant.  It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that.  One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry.  We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts."  Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day.  Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them.  It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard.  Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad.  Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton).  Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry.  Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin").  Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together.  They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own.  At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic.  A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time.  One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic.  The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be.  Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape.  Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch.  This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters.  The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone.  I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm.  Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book.  I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

Answer: One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry

A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that. By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. <hl> One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry . <hl> We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world. At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning. The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. <hl> One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry <hl>. We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).

<hl> One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry <hl> .


Question: What extra movie?

I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set, so I cannot comment on that.The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films.If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it.

Answer: the extras that may or may not come with this set

I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. <hl> I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set , so I cannot comment on that. <hl> The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films. If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it.

I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. I haven't looked at <hl> the extras that may or may not come with this set <hl>, so I cannot comment on that.The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films.If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it.

I haven't looked at <hl> the extras that may or may not come with this set <hl> , so I cannot comment on that.


Question: How is the story?

If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story, not which is the truth. I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it.

Answer: which is the better story

If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. <hl> When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story , not which is the truth. <hl> I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it.

If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is <hl> which is the better story <hl>, not which is the truth. I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it.

When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is <hl> which is the better story <hl> , not which is the truth.


Question: How strong is the story of TV series 'The Avengers' for youngsters?

*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks  (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy.The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are  u n b e l i e v a b l e  (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew  what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told..  and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far.Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end..  he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love.Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older..  but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan.Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!!

Answer: The acting is better

*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy. <hl> The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b <hl> e l i e v a b l e (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told.. and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far. Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end.. he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love. Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older.. but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan. Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!!

*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy.<hl> The acting is better <hl> then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b e l i e v a b l e (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told.. and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far.Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end.. he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love.Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older.. but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan.Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!!


Question: How is actor?

This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD.  Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting.  But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette.  If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p.  Thankfully, I was guided towards "I, Robot" and "Ratatouille" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission.  But the shoddy presentation of "House of Flying Daggers" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started.I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it.  The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective.  The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end.  I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect.  For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story.I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format.  This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet.  If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time.

Answer: The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end

This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD. Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting. But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette. If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p. Thankfully, I was guided towards "I, Robot" and "Ratatouille" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission. But the shoddy presentation of "House of Flying Daggers" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started. I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it. The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective. <hl> The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end . <hl> I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect. For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story. I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format. This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet. If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time.

This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD. Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting. But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette. If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p. Thankfully, I was guided towards "I, Robot" and "Ratatouille" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission. But the shoddy presentation of "House of Flying Daggers" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started.I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it. The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective. <hl> The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end <hl>. I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect. For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story.I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format. This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet. If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time.

<hl> The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end <hl> .


Question: Does this is film contains strong scene?

A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece, "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for  three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's  new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the  largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made  clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang  that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old  friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in  the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as  Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave  the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent  and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's  nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the  brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and  believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a  breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the  life-long consequences that accompany them.

Answer: A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece

<hl> A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. <hl> Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the life-long consequences that accompany them.

<hl> A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece <hl>, "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the life-long consequences that accompany them.

<hl> A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece <hl> , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film.


Question: How is the movie?

I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed.

Answer: The two films are very similar

I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. <hl> The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. <hl> In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing. At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died. The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers. I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims. One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers. The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars. First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work. Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie. Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed.

I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. <hl> The two films are very similar <hl> in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling "why should I care?" Because Sam Raimi ("Evil Dead" and "Spiderman") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed.


Question: What is the quality of the video?

Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD.  It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version.  If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set.  I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.

Answer: As with the aforementioned

Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover. First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there. For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along. The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure. I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation. Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). <hl> As with the aforementioned , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone. <hl> Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed. If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day. Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable. Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one. If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.

Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). <hl> As with the aforementioned <hl>, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.

<hl> As with the aforementioned <hl> , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.