Question: What do you think about message?

A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is.  On one level I agree:  it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said.  One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty.  To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities.  It is more than that:  it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy.  I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults.  I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children.  But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only.The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War.  Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain.  He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy.Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales.  Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale.  The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal.  He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom.The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head.  The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn.  While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot.  But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal.  In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so.This is a gruesome film.  It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes.  Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters.  He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty.  He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands.  The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof.  Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on.  Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film.The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film.  Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia.  She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin.  Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal.  He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just.  Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains.  I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before.  That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film.  Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression.  I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled "Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen.  But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2.  In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands.  Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten.A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is "boring."  I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is.  I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film.  I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years.

Answer: this isn't as good

<hl> A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is. <hl> On one level I agree: it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said. One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty. To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities. It is more than that: it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy. I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults. I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children. But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only. The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain. He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy. Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales. Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale. The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal. He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom. The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head. The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn. While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot. But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal. In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so. This is a gruesome film. It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes. Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters. He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty. He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands. The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof. Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on. Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film. The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film. Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia. She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin. Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal. He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just. Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains. I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before. That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film. Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression. I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled "Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen. But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2. In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands. Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten. A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is "boring." I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is. I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film. I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years.

A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that <hl> this isn't as good <hl> as many have insisted that it is. On one level I agree: it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said. One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty. To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities. It is more than that: it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy. I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults. I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children. But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only.The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain. He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy.Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales. Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale. The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal. He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom.The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head. The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn. While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot. But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal. In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so.This is a gruesome film. It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes. Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters. He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty. He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands. The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof. Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on. Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film.The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film. Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia. She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin. Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal. He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just. Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains. I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before. That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film. Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression. I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled "Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen. But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2. In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands. Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten.A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is "boring." I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is. I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film. I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years.


Question: How was the last scene of the play?

Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge.A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do "Friday The 13th") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror.This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut "R" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable. This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy.Also recommended: "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer", "I Spit on Your Grave", "Maniac (1980)", "Frontier(s)", "Driller Killer", "Inside", "House on The Edge of the Park", "The Toxic Avenger", "Cannibal Holocaust", "The Devil's Rejects", "House of 1000 Corpses", "Halloween (1978)", "The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)", "Grindhouse", "Wrong Turn 1 & 2", "Hostel 1 & 2", "Faces of Death", "Scream","The Midnight Meat Train", "Pieces", "Men Behind The Sun", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2", "Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3", "The Untold Story", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning", "Mother's Day", "Otis", "The New York Ripper", "High Tension", and "Borderland".

Answer: it would make people feel unfortable

Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge. A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do "Friday The 13th") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror. <hl> This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut "R" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable . <hl> This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy. Also recommended: "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer", "I Spit on Your Grave", "Maniac (1980)", "Frontier(s)", "Driller Killer", "Inside", "House on The Edge of the Park", "The Toxic Avenger", "Cannibal Holocaust", "The Devil's Rejects", "House of 1000 Corpses", "Halloween (1978)", "The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)", "Grindhouse", "Wrong Turn 1 & 2", "Hostel 1 & 2", "Faces of Death", "Scream","The Midnight Meat Train", "Pieces", "Men Behind The Sun", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2", "Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3", "The Untold Story", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning", "Mother's Day", "Otis", "The New York Ripper", "High Tension", and "Borderland".

Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge.A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do "Friday The 13th") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror.This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut "R" rated version as <hl> it would make people feel unfortable <hl>. This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy.Also recommended: "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer", "I Spit on Your Grave", "Maniac (1980)", "Frontier(s)", "Driller Killer", "Inside", "House on The Edge of the Park", "The Toxic Avenger", "Cannibal Holocaust", "The Devil's Rejects", "House of 1000 Corpses", "Halloween (1978)", "The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)", "Grindhouse", "Wrong Turn 1 & 2", "Hostel 1 & 2", "Faces of Death", "Scream","The Midnight Meat Train", "Pieces", "Men Behind The Sun", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2", "Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3", "The Untold Story", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning", "Mother's Day", "Otis", "The New York Ripper", "High Tension", and "Borderland".

This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut "R" rated version as <hl> it would make people feel unfortable <hl> .


Question: How is movie?

These movies are classic, however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set.

Answer: These movies are classic

<hl> These movies are classic , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films... <hl> What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set.

<hl> These movies are classic <hl>, however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set.

<hl> These movies are classic <hl> , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...


Question: Was the story and performance good?

Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank.  Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD.  This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism.  The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best.Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar.  Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE.  This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE.  No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here.  What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range.  In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA).  Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film.This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level.  The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms.  Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors.  Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor.  Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast.  Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book.The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas.  Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun.  After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime.  They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death.  During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own.  The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him.  The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback.  Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work.  In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title.  A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith.  At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging.  The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying.  I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story.I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible.  This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century.  The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed.  Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever.  If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case.  Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery.  IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future.  I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film.  I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly.

Answer: he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range

Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best. Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but <hl> that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range . <hl> In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film. This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book. The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story. I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly.

Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best.Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation <hl> he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range <hl>. In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film.This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book.The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story.I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly.

that within that imitation <hl> he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range <hl> .


Question: How is the chemistry?

Theatrical review.  May contain spoilers.It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences.  This year is no exception.  He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either.Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos).  The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box.  Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million.It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems.  Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover.  Neither were aware of the other's involvement.  It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware.  To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton).  If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow.There is one thing for sure.  There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby.  It is damn funny stuff.  Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing.  The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for "Contraband" also starring Wahlberg.  I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton.  The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies.

Answer: great chemistry

Theatrical review. May contain spoilers. It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences. This year is no exception. He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either. Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos). The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box. Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million. It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems. Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover. Neither were aware of the other's involvement. It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware. To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton). If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow. There is one thing for sure. There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby. It is damn funny stuff. <hl> Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing. <hl> The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for "Contraband" also starring Wahlberg. I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton. The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies.

Theatrical review. May contain spoilers.It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences. This year is no exception. He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either.Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos). The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box. Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million.It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems. Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover. Neither were aware of the other's involvement. It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware. To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton). If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow.There is one thing for sure. There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby. It is damn funny stuff. Washington and Wahlberg have <hl> great chemistry <hl> and perfect timing. The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for "Contraband" also starring Wahlberg. I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton. The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies.


Question: What is the quality of the paint?

it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. the picture and sound quality is great. watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done.

Answer: the picture and sound quality is great

it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. <hl> the picture and sound quality is great . <hl> watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done.

it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. <hl> the picture and sound quality is great <hl>. watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done.

<hl> the picture and sound quality is great <hl> .


Question: How is the quality of the animation?

If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine.  When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave!  The animation is incredible.  It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful.  It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does.  But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies.  She writes her own fate.  She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation.  And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie.  It is incredible.

Answer: The animation is incredible

If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine. <hl> When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible . <hl> It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful. It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does. But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies. She writes her own fate. She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation. And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie. It is incredible.

If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine. When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! <hl> The animation is incredible <hl>. It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful. It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does. But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies. She writes her own fate. She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation. And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie. It is incredible.

When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! <hl> The animation is incredible <hl> .


Question: How is it the movie?

Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth.Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe.Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be.Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life.The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions."Oblivion" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. Overall it's a good film, but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times.

Answer: Overall it's a good film

Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth. Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe. Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be. Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life. The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions. "Oblivion" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. <hl> Overall it's a good film , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. <hl> I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times.

Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth.Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe.Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be.Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life.The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions."Oblivion" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. <hl> Overall it's a good film <hl>, but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times.

<hl> Overall it's a good film <hl> , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres.


Question: Where can I make a movie that is true?

I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with. Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its "conspiracy theories". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that.The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the "thriller" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done.I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied.If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better.

Answer: the things the movie deals

<hl> I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with. <hl> Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its "conspiracy theories". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that. The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the "thriller" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done. I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied. If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better.

I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe <hl> the things the movie deals <hl> with. Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its "conspiracy theories". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that.The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the "thriller" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done.I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied.If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better.


Question: Was a realistic movie?

This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality: words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m-

Answer: first half hour show war in all its brutality

<hl> This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. <hl> It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m-

This movie's famous <hl> first half hour show war in all its brutality <hl>: words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m-

This movie's famous <hl> first half hour show war in all its brutality <hl> : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing.


Question: How is the effect of your childhood movie Ghostbusters?

i love loki but is the buy guy.  the city the thor lives in is prety. the movie was so cool.

Answer: the movie was so cool

the movie was so cool .

i love loki but is the buy guy. the city the thor lives in is prety. <hl> the movie was so cool . <hl>

i love loki but is the buy guy. the city the thor lives in is prety. <hl> the movie was so cool <hl>.