Question: What is the plot of the novel?

***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished. The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why.You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told.You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie.Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film.Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child.Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie.About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie.Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money.

Answer: the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished

***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. <hl> The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished . <hl> The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why. You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told. You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie. Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film. Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child. Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie. About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie. Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money.

***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. The story itself seemed to just jump around all over <hl> the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished <hl>. The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why.You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told.You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie.Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film.Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child.Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie.About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie.Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money.

The story itself seemed to just jump around all over <hl> the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished <hl> .


Question: How do you like the movie?

The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene.

Answer: this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I

The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? <hl> And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene. <hl>

The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? And if the viewer does not care about the characters, <hl> this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I <hl> found myself fast forwarding many a scene.


Question: How is movie?

Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!!  Good time sequencing!

Answer: Good time sequencing

Good time sequencing !

Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!! <hl> Good time sequencing ! <hl>

Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!! <hl> Good time sequencing <hl>!


Question: How long did the dialogue last?

Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end.  We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real.  Love it!

Answer: Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end

<hl> Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end . <hl> We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real. Love it!

<hl> Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end <hl>. We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real. Love it!

<hl> Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

The trailer was great...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did.

Answer: The trailer was great

<hl> The trailer was great ...most trailers are. <hl> They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did.

<hl> The trailer was great <hl>...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did.

<hl> The trailer was great <hl> ...most trailers are.


Question: What did the character look like?

I'm not an HBO subscriber.  I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either.  But it looked like a good show, so I bought the DVD set.I was blown away!  From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked.  The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence.Then there are the characters.  These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people.  They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast!  Every single principal actor on this show is terrific.  As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts.That writing!  These are well-crafted episodes.  Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more.And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare.I'm gushing, I know.  This is GOOD TV.  OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet).

Answer: it looked like a good show

I'm not an HBO subscriber. I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either. <hl> But it looked like a good show , so I bought the DVD set. <hl> I was blown away! From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked. The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence. Then there are the characters. These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people. They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast! Every single principal actor on this show is terrific. As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts. That writing! These are well-crafted episodes. Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more. And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare. I'm gushing, I know. This is GOOD TV. OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet).

I'm not an HBO subscriber. I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either. But <hl> it looked like a good show <hl>, so I bought the DVD set.I was blown away! From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked. The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence.Then there are the characters. These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people. They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast! Every single principal actor on this show is terrific. As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts.That writing! These are well-crafted episodes. Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more.And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare.I'm gushing, I know. This is GOOD TV. OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet).

But <hl> it looked like a good show <hl> , so I bought the DVD set.


Question: How is the movie?

My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know, remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there!

Answer: My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know

<hl> My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. <hl> The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there!

<hl> My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know <hl>, remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there!

<hl> My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know <hl> , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph.


Question: What's the greatest scene?

Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray.  And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and  Digital version are offered at the same price.I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted.  Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me.  The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost.  There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me.I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only.  Get it.  The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout.  No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from  the demo transfer quality that this is.The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy.  There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate.Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray.All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well.Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries.Thanks

Answer: I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted

Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray. And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and Digital version are offered at the same price. <hl> I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted . <hl> Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me. The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost. There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me. I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only. Get it. The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout. No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from the demo transfer quality that this is. The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy. There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate. Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray. All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well. Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries. Thanks

Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray. And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and Digital version are offered at the same price.<hl> I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted <hl>. Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me. The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost. There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me.I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only. Get it. The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout. No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from the demo transfer quality that this is.The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy. There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate.Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray.All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well.Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries.Thanks

<hl> I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted <hl> .


Question: Can you tell about this movie?

okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made. This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask.The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good.I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it.I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose.

Answer: but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made

<hl> okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made . <hl> This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask. The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good. I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it. I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose.

okay I like a lot of Movies <hl> but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made <hl>. This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask.The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good.I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it.I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose.

okay I like a lot of Movies <hl> but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made <hl> .


Question: Do you have any positive views about the movie?

I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie.  Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while.The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give.  The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece.  I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1.  The ending was quite suprising.  Not what I expected.  I love it!  The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(...)The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like "What vol 1?".  This film is so(...) good I might see it again.Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL.  She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs.  But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer.  The movie is also longer than vol 1.  Thats really a good thing..  The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye....Ok yeah you can..  You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek.  From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do.  The movies dialouge is the most important one of all.  So pure.  So good only Tarantino can give us this!  I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this.  Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece.  It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on.  Original, Pure, The best.  I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT!  I REPEAT!  DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd.  If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage.  What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc  collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on.  And it will probably have some great footage.  Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2.  Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005.  Just wait.But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie....Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed.  Check it out.

Answer: Possibly the best

I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie. <hl> Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while. <hl> The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give. The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece. I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1. The ending was quite suprising. Not what I expected. I love it! The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(... )The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like "What vol 1?". This film is so(...) good I might see it again. Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL. She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs. But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer. The movie is also longer than vol 1. Thats really a good thing.. The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye.... Ok yeah you can.. You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek. From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do. The movies dialouge is the most important one of all. So pure. So good only Tarantino can give us this! I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this. Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on. Original, Pure, The best. I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT! I REPEAT! DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd. If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage. What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on. And it will probably have some great footage. Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2. Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005. Just wait. But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie.... Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed. Check it out.

I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie. <hl> Possibly the best <hl> I have ever seen in quite a while.The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give. The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece. I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1. The ending was quite suprising. Not what I expected. I love it! The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(...)The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like "What vol 1?". This film is so(...) good I might see it again.Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL. She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs. But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer. The movie is also longer than vol 1. Thats really a good thing.. The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye....Ok yeah you can.. You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek. From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do. The movies dialouge is the most important one of all. So pure. So good only Tarantino can give us this! I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this. Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on. Original, Pure, The best. I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT! I REPEAT! DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd. If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage. What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on. And it will probably have some great footage. Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2. Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005. Just wait.But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie....Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed. Check it out.


Question: How is the quality?

First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption.  This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset.  All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized.  Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown.  Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time.  Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people.  Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story.  When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay.  But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why.  There's no need for it.  The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked.  Why does he keep messing with it?  In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice!  Again, I ask why?  Fett's voice was awesome.  He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader.  His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive.  This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete.  And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi?  Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him.  Why does he keep messing with these movies?  You had it right the first time Georgey boy!  If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace?  He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc.  He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks.  So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk.  Oh cruel fate!

Answer: quality is fantastic

First the good news: <hl> The picture and sound quality is fantastic , beyond desciption. <hl> This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!

First the good news: The picture and sound <hl> quality is fantastic <hl>, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!

The picture and sound <hl> quality is fantastic <hl> , beyond desciption.


Question: How it is the rest of the cast?

I really enjoyed this film.  I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended).  To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG.  There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies.Performances are uniformly great.  Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages.  Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance.A good catch.

Answer: edgy performance

I really enjoyed this film. I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended). To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG. There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies. Performances are uniformly great. Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages. <hl> Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance .A <hl> good catch.

I really enjoyed this film. I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended). To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG. There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies.Performances are uniformly great. Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages. Garner really surprised me with her brittle, <hl> edgy performance <hl>.A good catch.

Garner really surprised me with her brittle, <hl> edgy performance <hl> .A


Question: How good is the track?

In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since  I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this.

Answer: The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even

In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. <hl> The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. <hl> The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this.

In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. <hl> The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even <hl> though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this.


Question: How is the sense?

Wes Anderson's third film, "The Royal Tenenbaums," is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) "Rushmore."One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question "Can the boy tell time?" with "Heavens, no."He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in "Rushmore" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song "Needle in the Hay."The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here.Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection.

Answer: DVD

Wes Anderson's third film, "The Royal Tenenbaums," is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) "Rushmore. "One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question "Can the boy tell time?" with "Heavens, no."He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in "Rushmore" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song "Needle in the Hay. "The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here. Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. <hl> A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection. <hl>

Wes Anderson's third film, "The Royal Tenenbaums," is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) "Rushmore."One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question "Can the boy tell time?" with "Heavens, no."He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in "Rushmore" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song "Needle in the Hay."The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here.Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's <hl> DVD <hl> collection.


Question: How is the chemistry?

The chemistry between the two leads was believable; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline.  I really liked this movie.Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why.  I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance.  I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual.  Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to "Walk the Line" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago.  It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience.  Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job.  Hats off!

Answer: The chemistry between the two leads was believable

<hl> The chemistry between the two leads was believable ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline. <hl> I really liked this movie. Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why. I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance. I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual. Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to "Walk the Line" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago. It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience. Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job. Hats off!

<hl> The chemistry between the two leads was believable <hl>; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline. I really liked this movie.Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why. I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance. I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual. Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to "Walk the Line" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago. It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience. Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job. Hats off!

<hl> The chemistry between the two leads was believable <hl> ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline.


Question: How is the movie?

Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it.  They were right

Answer: movie was mediocre

<hl> Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it. <hl> They were right

Everyone zI talked to said this <hl> movie was mediocre <hl> but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it. They were right


Question: Is cinematography of this picture ordinary or excellent?

The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film.  The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. Highly recommended.

Answer: The movie also has beautiful scenery

The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film. The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. <hl> The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. <hl> Highly recommended.

The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film. The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. <hl> The movie also has beautiful scenery <hl> (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. Highly recommended.


Question: What is the cast full of?

Are you a nark? This movie has so many great actors! It won best picture and it was well deserved!

Answer: great actors

This movie has so many great actors !

Are you a nark? <hl> This movie has so many great actors ! <hl> It won best picture and it was well deserved!

Are you a nark? This movie has so many <hl> great actors <hl>! It won best picture and it was well deserved!

This movie has so many <hl> great actors <hl> !


Question: How is this movie?

This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene.One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind.There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy.There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers.This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point. This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls.

Answer: This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point

This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene. One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind. There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy. There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers. <hl> This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point . <hl> This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls.

This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene.One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind.There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy.There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers.<hl> This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point <hl>. This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls.

<hl> This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point <hl> .


Question: How is the story?

In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills, but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed.  Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending.  This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions.

Answer: the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills

<hl> In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed. <hl> Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending. This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions.

In the beginning I thought <hl> the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills <hl>, but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed. Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending. This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions.

In the beginning I thought <hl> the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills <hl> , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed.


Question: Can you save those moments in your memory?

Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college.ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek, including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper.I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised.Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the "Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention.Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved.

Answer: the best moments in the long history of Star Trek

Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college. <hl> ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. <hl> But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper. I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised. Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the "Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention. Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved.

Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college.ST II has some of <hl> the best moments in the long history of Star Trek <hl>, including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper.I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised.Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the "Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention.Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved.

ST II has some of <hl> the best moments in the long history of Star Trek <hl> , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan.


Question: How is the depth?

Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!!  Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect.  Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint.  When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like.."What the f?!!", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness.  At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect.  The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part.  Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been.  Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie, it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie.  Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot.  Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre.

Answer: I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie

Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!! Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect. Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint. When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like.."What the f?!! ", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness. At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect. The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part. Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been. <hl> Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie. <hl> Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot. Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre.

Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!! Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect. Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint. When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like.."What the f?!!", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness. At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect. The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part. Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been. Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, <hl> I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie <hl>, it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie. Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot. Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre.

Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, <hl> I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie <hl> , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie.


Question: How is the quality of movie?

For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it.  Yes, you read that right.  They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse.  From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall.This brings me to my next point.  What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film.  They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal.  However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film.The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film.  Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society.  Did I need a spoiler alert for that though?  It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible.  Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible.  In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good.  There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions.  Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian.  Eli's actions are.  The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message.  Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough.  They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society.  The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt.Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well.  He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely).  It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable.The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending.  They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is.  It turns out all along Eli is blind!  Oooh!  >_>  As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable.The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman.  The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive.  He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious.  This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it.  They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses.  This was the best thing the film had going for it.I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack.Seriously, this film is horrible.

Answer: this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it

<hl> For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it . <hl> Yes, you read that right. They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse. From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall. This brings me to my next point. What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film. They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal. However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film. The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film. Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society. Did I need a spoiler alert for that though? It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible. Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible. In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good. There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions. Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian. Eli's actions are. The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message. Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough. They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society. The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt. Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well. He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely). It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable. The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending. They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is. It turns out all along Eli is blind! Oooh! >_> As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable. The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman. The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive. He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious. This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it. They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses. This was the best thing the film had going for it. I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack. Seriously, this film is horrible.

For starters, <hl> this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it <hl>. Yes, you read that right. They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse. From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall.This brings me to my next point. What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film. They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal. However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film.The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film. Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society. Did I need a spoiler alert for that though? It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible. Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible. In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good. There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions. Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian. Eli's actions are. The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message. Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough. They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society. The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt.Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well. He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely). It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable.The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending. They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is. It turns out all along Eli is blind! Oooh! >_> As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable.The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman. The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive. He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious. This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it. They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses. This was the best thing the film had going for it.I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack.Seriously, this film is horrible.

For starters, <hl> this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it <hl> .


Question: How good is the story in this serie?

This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash.But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done. The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen.This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars.

Answer: 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done

This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash. But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term <hl> but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done . <hl> The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen. This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars.

This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash.But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term but sure made for a exciting part <hl> 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done <hl>. The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen.This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars.

but sure made for a exciting part <hl> 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done <hl> .