Question: What is your opinion about the character?

Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring. Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor...It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right.

Answer: the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring

Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! <hl> I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring . <hl> Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor... It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right.

Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! I thought this would be as good, but <hl> the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring <hl>. Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor...It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right.

I thought this would be as good, but <hl> the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring <hl> .


Question: What is your favorite music genre?

What the heck did I just watch?  This movie is senseless.In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel.  Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask?  Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc.  For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter.  Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon.I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done.  However, after the first two I found myself asking - "Is this all there is?  Do I have to go through this two or three more times?"  In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy.  The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more.  Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy.  Sucker Punch was just like that.  The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one.  Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up!  This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack.In the end, I just wondered what the point was.  This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off.  That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one.  One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe.You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is?  By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it.  Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right?  Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they "don't get it" etc, etc.  Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah.  You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts.Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner.

Answer: various dirty dance routines

What the heck did I just watch? This movie is senseless. <hl> In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel. <hl> Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask? Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc. For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter. Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon. I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done. However, after the first two I found myself asking - "Is this all there is? Do I have to go through this two or three more times?" In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy. The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more. Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy. Sucker Punch was just like that. The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one. Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up! This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack. In the end, I just wondered what the point was. This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off. That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one. One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe. You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is? By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it. Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right? Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they "don't get it" etc, etc. Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah. You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts. Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner.

What the heck did I just watch? This movie is senseless.In a nutshell, the hero does <hl> various dirty dance routines <hl> (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel. Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask? Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc. For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter. Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon.I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done. However, after the first two I found myself asking - "Is this all there is? Do I have to go through this two or three more times?" In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy. The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more. Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy. Sucker Punch was just like that. The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one. Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up! This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack.In the end, I just wondered what the point was. This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off. That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one. One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe.You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is? By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it. Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right? Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they "don't get it" etc, etc. Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah. You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts.Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner.


Question: How was its effect?

Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly.  So I did.  And at first I thought it was great!  But later, I realized how very childish this movie is.  Sure, the visual effects were nice, and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix.  Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor.  And the plot wasn't very clever either.  It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy.  If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars.  But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs.Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it.  But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO?

Answer: the visual effects were nice

Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly. So I did. And at first I thought it was great! But later, I realized how very childish this movie is. <hl> Sure, the visual effects were nice , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix. <hl> Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor. And the plot wasn't very clever either. It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy. If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars. But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs. Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it. But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO?

Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly. So I did. And at first I thought it was great! But later, I realized how very childish this movie is. Sure, <hl> the visual effects were nice <hl>, and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix. Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor. And the plot wasn't very clever either. It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy. If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars. But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs.Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it. But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO?

Sure, <hl> the visual effects were nice <hl> , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix.


Question: How you would describe this episode edition?

Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come.  If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of "BtVS," then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not.  Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation.  You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode ("Angel"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in "Becoming: Part II," the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of "BtVS" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents ("Witch"), having a crush on a teacher ("Teacher's Pet"), school cliques ("The Pack"), meeting someone on the internet ("I Robot, You Jane"), facing your worst fears ("Nightmares"), being ignored by everybody ("Out of Mind, Out of Sight"), and even just trying to go out on a date ("Never Kill a Boy On the First Date") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes.Watching the first season episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is "Teacher's Pet" although others have problems with "Witch," "I Robot, You Jane" and "Out of Mind, Out of Sight." But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the "Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest" pilot, "The Pack," "Angel" and "Prophecy Girl" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch "When She Was Bad," the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her "I don't want to die" speech in "Prophecy Girl." Killing Buffy only makes her stronger.

Answer: Having had a couple of years

<hl> Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come. <hl> If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of "BtVS," then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not. Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation. You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode ("Angel"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in "Becoming: Part II," the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of "BtVS" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents ("Witch"), having a crush on a teacher ("Teacher's Pet"), school cliques ("The Pack"), meeting someone on the internet ("I Robot, You Jane"), facing your worst fears ("Nightmares"), being ignored by everybody ("Out of Mind, Out of Sight"), and even just trying to go out on a date ("Never Kill a Boy On the First Date") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes. Watching the first season episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is "Teacher's Pet" although others have problems with "Witch," "I Robot, You Jane" and "Out of Mind, Out of Sight." But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the "Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest" pilot, "The Pack," "Angel" and "Prophecy Girl" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch "When She Was Bad," the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her "I don't want to die" speech in "Prophecy Girl." Killing Buffy only makes her stronger.

<hl> Having had a couple of years <hl> to mull over the final episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come. If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of "BtVS," then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not. Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation. You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode ("Angel"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in "Becoming: Part II," the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of "BtVS" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents ("Witch"), having a crush on a teacher ("Teacher's Pet"), school cliques ("The Pack"), meeting someone on the internet ("I Robot, You Jane"), facing your worst fears ("Nightmares"), being ignored by everybody ("Out of Mind, Out of Sight"), and even just trying to go out on a date ("Never Kill a Boy On the First Date") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes.Watching the first season episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is "Teacher's Pet" although others have problems with "Witch," "I Robot, You Jane" and "Out of Mind, Out of Sight." But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the "Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest" pilot, "The Pack," "Angel" and "Prophecy Girl" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch "When She Was Bad," the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her "I don't want to die" speech in "Prophecy Girl." Killing Buffy only makes her stronger.


Question: Is the heart in the right side?

I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute, I wondered? But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem.

Answer: movie really be cute

<hl> I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute , I wondered? <hl> But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem.

I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster <hl> movie really be cute <hl>, I wondered? But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem.

I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster <hl> movie really be cute <hl> , I wondered?


Question: How is this story?

The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson.It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her "dummkopf" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer.The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing.I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. The story and cast are simply superb. The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good?  God's Word says none are righteous."There is none righteous, not even one." Romans 3:10"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved."For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'.

Answer: The story and cast are simply superb

The story and cast are simply superb .

The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson. It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her "dummkopf" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer. The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing. I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. <hl> The story and cast are simply superb . <hl> The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good? God's Word says none are righteous. "There is none righteous, not even one." Romans 3:10"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. "For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'.

The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson.It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her "dummkopf" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer.The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing.I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. <hl> The story and cast are simply superb <hl>. The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good? God's Word says none are righteous."There is none righteous, not even one." Romans 3:10"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved."For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'.

<hl> The story and cast are simply superb <hl> .


Question: How can I find extra interesting movies?

8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five.  The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen.  The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer.  The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now.  The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad.The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the "conspiracy unmasked" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT!*** The wraiths were also done very well.The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and "tone" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done.Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf "defeats" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising!***

Answer: The movie CHOPS 20% of the book

8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five. The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen. The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer. The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now. The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad. <hl> The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- <hl> (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the "conspiracy unmasked" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT! *** The wraiths were also done very well. The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and "tone" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf "defeats" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising! ***

8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five. The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen. The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer. The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now. The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad.<hl> The movie CHOPS 20% of the book <hl> -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the "conspiracy unmasked" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT!*** The wraiths were also done very well.The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and "tone" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done.Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf "defeats" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising!***


Question: How is the story?

Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled, bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her....Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart.Skip this movie...

Answer: story was muffled

Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. <hl> First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one. <hl> So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her.... Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart. Skip this movie...

Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the <hl> story was muffled <hl>, bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her....Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart.Skip this movie...

First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the <hl> story was muffled <hl> , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.


Question: How interesting is this documentary?

I can't figure out who this is marketed to.  It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions.  Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other.  The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes.  The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people.  They are not comprised of 30 minute "making of Helms Deep set" specials or anything like that.Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these.  The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released.  But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set.  The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films.  No commentaries or anything.As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead.

Answer: the documentaries are pretty interesting

I can't figure out who this is marketed to. It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions. Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other. The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes. The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people. They are not comprised of 30 minute "making of Helms Deep set" specials or anything like that. Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these. The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released. But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set. The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films. No commentaries or anything. <hl> As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead. <hl>

I can't figure out who this is marketed to. It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions. Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other. The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes. The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people. They are not comprised of 30 minute "making of Helms Deep set" specials or anything like that.Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these. The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released. But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set. The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films. No commentaries or anything.As I said, <hl> the documentaries are pretty interesting <hl> if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead.


Question: Is the reviewed movie said to be lacking the properties that an action movie usually features?

Good movie and the action is nonstop. I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie.

Answer: Good movie and the action is nonstop

Good movie and the action is nonstop .

<hl> Good movie and the action is nonstop . <hl> I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie.

<hl> Good movie and the action is nonstop <hl>. I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie.

<hl> Good movie and the action is nonstop <hl> .


Question: What is the movie like?

Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time... Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad.Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble.Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name.Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past.Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience.Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie.

Answer: most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time

<hl> Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time ... <hl> Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad. Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble. Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name. Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past. Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience. Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie.

Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the <hl> most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time <hl>... Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad.Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble.Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name.Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past.Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience.Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie.

Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the <hl> most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time <hl> ...


Question: What is the incredible chemistry?

From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie.  I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed.  This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year.  This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly.  The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano.  His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover.  Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home...well at least his parent's home.  Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his "issues" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it.  This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job.  After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany.  A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own.  Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship.  When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal.  If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him.  At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work.  Having said that, this film amazingly works.  Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring.  What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people.  They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues.  To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters.  David O' Russell directed and wrote this film.  I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film.  He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars.  Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today.  Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life.  She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film.  She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one.  Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman.  After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father.  Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance.  He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully.  Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom.  She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet.  I think she should get another one for this film.  Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris.  We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise.  He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell.  I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film.  The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles.  I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper.  We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover.  Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range.  His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level.  This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year.  He was extremely believable as Pat.  Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together.  You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst.  You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends.  You really want him to get his silver lining.  If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty.  This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made.

Answer: To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters

From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie. I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed. This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year. This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly. The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano. His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover. Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home... well at least his parent's home. Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his "issues" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it. This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job. After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany. A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own. Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship. When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal. If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him. At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work. Having said that, this film amazingly works. Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring. What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people. They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues. <hl> To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters . <hl> David O' Russell directed and wrote this film. I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film. He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars. Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today. Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life. She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film. She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one. Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman. After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father. Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance. He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully. Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom. She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet. I think she should get another one for this film. Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris. We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise. He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell. I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film. The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles. I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper. We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover. Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range. His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level. This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year. He was extremely believable as Pat. Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together. You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst. You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends. You really want him to get his silver lining. If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty. This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made.

From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie. I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed. This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year. This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly. The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano. His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover. Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home...well at least his parent's home. Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his "issues" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it. This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job. After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany. A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own. Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship. When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal. If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him. At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work. Having said that, this film amazingly works. Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring. What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people. They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues. <hl> To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters <hl>. David O' Russell directed and wrote this film. I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film. He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars. Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today. Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life. She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film. She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one. Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman. After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father. Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance. He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully. Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom. She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet. I think she should get another one for this film. Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris. We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise. He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell. I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film. The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles. I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper. We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover. Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range. His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level. This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year. He was extremely believable as Pat. Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together. You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst. You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends. You really want him to get his silver lining. If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty. This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made.

<hl> To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters <hl> .


Question: Is the movie easy to understand?

An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest.The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound.  My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing.  Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours.The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent.  The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous.Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders.  He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany).  However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship "Acheron", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition.The captain of the "Acheron" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle.A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor.  It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie.Amanda Richards, September 28, 2004

Answer: you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie

An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest. The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound. My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing. Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours. The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent. The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous. Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders. He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship "Acheron", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition. The captain of the "Acheron" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle. A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor. It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. <hl> Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie .Amanda <hl> Richards, September 28, 2004

An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest.The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound. My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing. Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours.The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent. The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous.Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders. He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship "Acheron", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition.The captain of the "Acheron" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle.A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor. It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, <hl> you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie <hl>.Amanda Richards, September 28, 2004

Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, <hl> you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie <hl> .Amanda


Question: How much is missing from the collection?

I loved the movie and the packaging was great! I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for  my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie

Answer: the movie and the packaging was great

<hl> I loved the movie and the packaging was great ! <hl> I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie

I loved <hl> the movie and the packaging was great <hl>! I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie

I loved <hl> the movie and the packaging was great <hl> !


Question: How about the premise you now have?

Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction.  Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some "time" sharing my thoughts about it.  I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan ("White Collar"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan.  Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role.  You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo.  He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life.It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated.  A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this "wrong-side-of-the-toll" Time Zone.I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie.  I haven't seen "Logan's Run," but that movie apparently has a similar theme.This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: "Live simply so others can simply live."

Answer: this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some "time" sharing my thoughts about it

Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction. <hl> Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some "time" sharing my thoughts about it . <hl> I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan ("White Collar"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan. Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role. You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo. He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life. It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated. A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this "wrong-side-of-the-toll" Time Zone. I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie. I haven't seen "Logan's Run," but that movie apparently has a similar theme. This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: "Live simply so others can simply live."

Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction. Still, <hl> this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some "time" sharing my thoughts about it <hl>. I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan ("White Collar"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan. Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role. You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo. He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life.It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated. A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this "wrong-side-of-the-toll" Time Zone.I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie. I haven't seen "Logan's Run," but that movie apparently has a similar theme.This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: "Live simply so others can simply live."

Still, <hl> this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some "time" sharing my thoughts about it <hl> .


Question: Are the actions credible?

the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental.  i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360.  I certainly rent again.

Answer: the movie was pretty good

<hl> the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental. <hl> i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360. I certainly rent again.

<hl> the movie was pretty good <hl> and well worth the rental. i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360. I certainly rent again.