Question: How do you like the movie?

Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs:  Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake.  And I don't mean that in a bad way.  It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves.  But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists.  It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is).  You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all.I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations:  "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time."  Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie, you won't feel as cheated.  Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise?  After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting.  Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end.  It's barely even a Tim Burton film.Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space.  As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people.  For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing.  And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way.  Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant.Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling.  Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan.Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised.  But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum.  Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut.  Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care.  Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins.  Which she does.  Oh yes, she does indeed.I won't compare it to the original.  No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here.  You will find a few good performances.  Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator.  He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too.  Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments.  And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original.  And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad.

Answer: bad movie

Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs: Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves. But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists. It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is). You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all. <hl> I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie , you won't feel as cheated. <hl> Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise? After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting. Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end. It's barely even a Tim Burton film. Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space. As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people. For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing. And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way. Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant. Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling. Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan. Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised. But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum. Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut. Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care. Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins. Which she does. Oh yes, she does indeed. I won't compare it to the original. No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here. You will find a few good performances. Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator. He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too. Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments. And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original. And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad.

Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs: Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves. But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists. It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is). You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all.I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a <hl> bad movie <hl>, you won't feel as cheated. Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise? After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting. Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end. It's barely even a Tim Burton film.Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space. As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people. For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing. And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way. Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant.Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling. Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan.Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised. But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum. Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut. Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care. Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins. Which she does. Oh yes, she does indeed.I won't compare it to the original. No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here. You will find a few good performances. Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator. He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too. Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments. And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original. And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad.

I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a <hl> bad movie <hl> , you won't feel as cheated.


Question: What is audio?

I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great.First, the picture quality. There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast-motion HDTV broadcasts. The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full.The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better.This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD.

Answer: There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast

I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great. First, the picture quality. <hl> There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast -motion HDTV broadcasts. <hl> The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full. The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better. This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD.

I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great.First, the picture quality. <hl> There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast <hl>-motion HDTV broadcasts. The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full.The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better.This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD.

<hl> There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast <hl> -motion HDTV broadcasts.


Question: Does the tone look different?

good but the others were better I think. love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see

Answer: good but the others were better I think

<hl> good but the others were better I think . <hl> love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see

<hl> good but the others were better I think <hl>. love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see

<hl> good but the others were better I think <hl> .


Question: What do you estimate the action of this movie?

Best movie I have seen all year.  Worth it all.  Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way.  I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action.  The fights are awesome.

Answer: recommend this movie to anyone who loves action

Best movie I have seen all year. Worth it all. Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way. I <hl> would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action . <hl> The fights are awesome.

Best movie I have seen all year. Worth it all. Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way. I would <hl> recommend this movie to anyone who loves action <hl>. The fights are awesome.

would <hl> recommend this movie to anyone who loves action <hl> .


Question: What is the plot of this work based on?

As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts: the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of "What's going to happen next?" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan!

Answer: As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts

<hl> As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. <hl> I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of "What's going to happen next?" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan!

<hl> As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts <hl>: the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of "What's going to happen next?" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan!

<hl> As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts <hl> : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying.


Question: Does this movie have a lot of action?

When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time.But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting.But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below.First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines ("You will run this bastard down") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it.But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered "It looks like a video game." Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion.Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way.Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher.Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion.Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either.In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. "Are they really doing this right now?" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes.Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says "You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter.There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't.Namely, there's the little "Khan's magic blood" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to "homage" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess....The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep.Live long and prosper, Abrams!

Answer: action-packed film

When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. <hl> For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. <hl> For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time. But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting. But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below. First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines ("You will run this bastard down") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it. But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered "It looks like a video game." Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion. Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way. Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher. Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion. Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either. In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. "Are they really doing this right now?" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes. Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says "You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter. There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't. Namely, there's the little "Khan's magic blood" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to "homage" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess.... The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep. Live long and prosper, Abrams!

When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, <hl> action-packed film <hl> where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time.But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting.But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below.First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines ("You will run this bastard down") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it.But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered "It looks like a video game." Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion.Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way.Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher.Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion.Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either.In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. "Are they really doing this right now?" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes.Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says "You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter.There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't.Namely, there's the little "Khan's magic blood" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to "homage" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess....The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep.Live long and prosper, Abrams!


Question: How is the story is so familiar . the brutality is unrelenting?

And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer-generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to.I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying "No really where's the real script?" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really.The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera.

Answer: the new computer

And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. <hl> This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality. <hl> There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to. I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying "No really where's the real script?" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really. The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera.

And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with <hl> the new computer <hl>-generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to.I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying "No really where's the real script?" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really.The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera.

This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with <hl> the new computer <hl> -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.


Question: How good are the actors in this film?

This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. All the actors are brilliant, above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a "chef d'oeuvre".

Answer: All the actors are brilliant

This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. <hl> All the actors are brilliant , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet. <hl> Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a "chef d'oeuvre".

This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. <hl> All the actors are brilliant <hl>, above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a "chef d'oeuvre".

<hl> All the actors are brilliant <hl> , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.


Question: How is movie?

It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals.The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also.This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice!

Answer: It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice

It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals. The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also. This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. <hl> It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice ! <hl>

It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals.The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also.This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. <hl> It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice <hl>!

<hl> It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice <hl> !


Question: How is the film?

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it.  The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law.  A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle.  Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone.  Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax.  The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for.  Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points.  Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate.James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.  Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype.  Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy.  The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans.  This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it.  Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time.  Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future.  Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars!

Answer: DVD

<hl> Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it. <hl> The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law. A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle. Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone. Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax. The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for. Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points. Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate. James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype. Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy. The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans. This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it. Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time. Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future. Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars!

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on <hl> DVD <hl> as he originally intended it. The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law. A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle. Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone. Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax. The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for. Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points. Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate.James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype. Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy. The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans. This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it. Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time. Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future. Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars!


Question: How is the music on the book?

I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this.It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the "thing" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...), needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one.'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money.

Answer: bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the "thing" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...)

I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this. <hl> It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the "thing" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. <hl> It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one. 'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money.

I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this.It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, <hl> bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the "thing" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) <hl>, needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one.'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money.

It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, <hl> bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the "thing" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) <hl> , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock.


Question: How is the quality?

Wow, "Avatar" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora.  The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic.  And of course, coming from the creator of the first two "Terminator" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying.The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema.  The story is basically a combination of "Pocahontas", "Dances With Wolves",  "Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest", "Dune", "Tarzan", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism,  rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world.  And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life.  The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth",  with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end.The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence.  In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies,  often taking an Indian woman as a wife.  Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way;  Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom.And as pointed out in the book "1491", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture.Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie.  It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others.I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing.  It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork.  And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive.The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting "Aliens"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum:Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen.  As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen.  All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie.  Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time.The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect.  It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images.The Dolby 3D was only so-so.  The biggest problem was the small glasses.  It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies.  I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times.  The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen.  But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie.So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route.  There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section.

Answer: the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen

Wow, "Avatar" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora. The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic. And of course, coming from the creator of the first two "Terminator" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying. The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema. The story is basically a combination of "Pocahontas", "Dances With Wolves", "Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest", "Dune", "Tarzan", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism, rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world. And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life. The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth", with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end. The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence. In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies, often taking an Indian woman as a wife. Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way; Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom. And as pointed out in the book "1491", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture. Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie. It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others. I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing. It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork. And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive. The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting "Aliens"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum: Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen. <hl> As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen . <hl> All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie. Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time. The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect. It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images. The Dolby 3D was only so-so. The biggest problem was the small glasses. It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies. I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times. The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen. But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie. So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route. There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section.

Wow, "Avatar" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora. The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic. And of course, coming from the creator of the first two "Terminator" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying.The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema. The story is basically a combination of "Pocahontas", "Dances With Wolves", "Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest", "Dune", "Tarzan", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism, rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world. And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life. The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth", with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end.The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence. In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies, often taking an Indian woman as a wife. Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way; Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom.And as pointed out in the book "1491", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture.Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie. It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others.I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing. It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork. And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive.The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting "Aliens"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum:Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen. As is often cited, <hl> the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen <hl>. All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie. Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time.The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect. It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images.The Dolby 3D was only so-so. The biggest problem was the small glasses. It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies. I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times. The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen. But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie.So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route. There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section.

As is often cited, <hl> the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen <hl> .


Question: What version is it?

I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI.  I don't understand why people are complaining.  If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the "new" versions, just toss them and keep the others!  Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do.  If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it!  I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases.  I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints.

Answer: I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions

<hl> I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI. <hl> I don't understand why people are complaining. If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the "new" versions, just toss them and keep the others! Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do. If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it! I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases. I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints.

<hl> I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions <hl> of Episodes IV, V, VI. I don't understand why people are complaining. If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the "new" versions, just toss them and keep the others! Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do. If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it! I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases. I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints.


Question: What is the color of this film?

Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a "lovable loser" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his "ambitions" are commendable, kind of like an "everyman," so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature.Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all.Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track, Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any.Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the "making of" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the "rat history" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects.Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults.

Answer: Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect

Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a "lovable loser" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his "ambitions" are commendable, kind of like an "everyman," so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature. Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. <hl> Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. <hl> Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all. Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track , Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any. Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the "making of" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the "rat history" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects. Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults.

Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a "lovable loser" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his "ambitions" are commendable, kind of like an "everyman," so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature.Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. <hl> Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect <hl> in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all.Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track, Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any.Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the "making of" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the "rat history" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects.Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults.


Question: How is the movie?

The movie was much better than the book, which was boring from the start.  I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made.

Answer: The movie was much better than the book

<hl> The movie was much better than the book , which was boring from the start. <hl> I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made.

<hl> The movie was much better than the book <hl>, which was boring from the start. I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made.

<hl> The movie was much better than the book <hl> , which was boring from the start.


Question: How is the reason?

The storyline is rather simple - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.

Answer: Part of that is due to her reason for revenge

The storyline is rather simple - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. <hl> Part of that is due to her reason for revenge , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way. <hl> By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times. The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.

The storyline is rather simple - "the Bride" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. <hl> Part of that is due to her reason for revenge <hl>, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.

<hl> Part of that is due to her reason for revenge <hl> , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie "fun" in a way.