Question: How old is the film?

Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire.  Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true.Old Detroit, the near future.  The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men.  The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation.Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department.  Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets.An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead.  Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop.  Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born.Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like.  Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses.The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity.  His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death.  His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death.As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence.  The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore.  While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating.The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen.  There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track.  The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production.Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down.  "I'd buy that for a dollar!"

Answer: 1987

<hl> Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire. <hl> Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true. Old Detroit, the near future. The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men. The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation. Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department. Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets. An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead. Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop. Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born. Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like. Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses. The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity. His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death. His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death. As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence. The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore. While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating. The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track. The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production. Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down. "I'd buy that for a dollar!"

Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's <hl> 1987 <hl> "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire. Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true.Old Detroit, the near future. The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men. The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation.Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department. Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets.An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead. Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop. Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born.Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like. Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses.The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity. His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death. His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death.As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence. The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore. While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating.The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track. The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production.Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down. "I'd buy that for a dollar!"


Question: Does every artists playing good for their character?

I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general.  The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off.

Answer: and became a real

I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general. <hl> The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off. <hl>

I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general. The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason <hl> and became a real <hl> turn off.


Question: Why don't you use your talent?

I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend.  Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies.  Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie, I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie.

Answer: Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie

I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend. Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies. <hl> Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie. <hl>

I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend. Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies. <hl> Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie <hl>, I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie.

<hl> Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie <hl> , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie.


Question: How are the act of the actors?

Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore.Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers.Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end.The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. It's a great movie, and you won't want to miss it.

Answer: It's a great movie

Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore. Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers. Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end. The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. <hl> It's a great movie , and you won't want to miss it. <hl>

Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore.Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers.Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end.The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. <hl> It's a great movie <hl>, and you won't want to miss it.

<hl> It's a great movie <hl> , and you won't want to miss it.


Question: How good is the action?

I thought this movie was great: it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment.I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them.The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning).  But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2).  Every bit of the $225m was money well spent.I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception.  The commentary by the writers was just OK to me.  They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience.  It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary.  I really liked "Creating Jack Sparrow", but the extras were all pretty good.But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well.DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star.See you all in the theatre come summer!

Answer: great

<hl> I thought this movie was great : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. <hl> I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment. I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them. The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning). But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2). Every bit of the $225m was money well spent. I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception. The commentary by the writers was just OK to me. They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience. It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary. I really liked "Creating Jack Sparrow", but the extras were all pretty good. But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well. DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star. See you all in the theatre come summer!

I thought this movie was <hl> great <hl>: it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment.I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them.The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning). But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2). Every bit of the $225m was money well spent.I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception. The commentary by the writers was just OK to me. They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience. It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary. I really liked "Creating Jack Sparrow", but the extras were all pretty good.But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well.DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star.See you all in the theatre come summer!

I thought this movie was <hl> great <hl> : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent.


Question: Why do I have a good voice act?

I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman.I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended.

Answer: have

<hl> I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. <hl> The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman. I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended.

I didn't <hl> have <hl> the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman.I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended.


Question: What do you think about actor?

Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!!

Answer: The actors were wonderful

Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. <hl> The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. <hl> Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!!

Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. <hl> The actors were wonderful <hl> and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!!


Question: How short is this story?

If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie.  This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life.  This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film.Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically.  If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this!  You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers.  Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive.If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance.  Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul.  While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award.  One cannot view her performance with apathy.  I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes.  It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar.  It just felt absolutely right.While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful.  These are the reasons for the four-star-rating.

Answer: this version that fall far short

If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie. This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life. This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film. <hl> Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically. <hl> If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this! You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers. Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive. If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul. While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award. One cannot view her performance with apathy. I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes. It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar. It just felt absolutely right. While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful. These are the reasons for the four-star-rating.

If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie. This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life. This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film.Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in <hl> this version that fall far short <hl> of perfection -- especially musically. If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this! You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers. Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive.If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul. While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award. One cannot view her performance with apathy. I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes. It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar. It just felt absolutely right.While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful. These are the reasons for the four-star-rating.


Question: How was the movie?

This movie was entertaining. It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime.

Answer: This movie was entertaining

This movie was entertaining .

<hl> This movie was entertaining . <hl> It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime.

<hl> This movie was entertaining <hl>. It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime.


Question: How is the disc?

With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how "exhaustive" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's "Alien" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's "Aliens" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's "Alien 3" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's "Alien Resurrection" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet. I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have.

Answer: The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet

With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how "exhaustive" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's "Alien" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's "Aliens" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's "Alien 3" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's "Alien Resurrection" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. <hl> The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet . <hl> I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have.

With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how "exhaustive" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's "Alien" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's "Aliens" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's "Alien 3" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's "Alien Resurrection" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. <hl> The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet <hl>. I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have.

<hl> The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet <hl> .


Question: How well written are the characters?

The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat. There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story.Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over.

Answer: In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat

The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. <hl> In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat . <hl> There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story. Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over.

The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. <hl> In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat <hl>. There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story.Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over.

<hl> In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat <hl> .


Question: When did that number come out?

Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled.  I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it.  As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie.  I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince.  This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age.  I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to).  I am certainly saving this DVD for my children.  The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning.  I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me.

Answer: I watched it as a little child, but

Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled. <hl> I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it. <hl> As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie. I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince. This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age. I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to). I am certainly saving this DVD for my children. The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning. I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me.

Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled. <hl> I watched it as a little child, but <hl> would often become too scared to see parts of it. As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie. I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince. This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age. I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to). I am certainly saving this DVD for my children. The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning. I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me.


Question: What to do with this movie?

This is an action movie for action movie fans. It has a solid plot, lots of action, and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD!

Answer: It has a solid plot, lots of action

This is an action movie for action movie fans. <hl> It has a solid plot, lots of action , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. <hl> I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD!

This is an action movie for action movie fans. <hl> It has a solid plot, lots of action <hl>, and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD!

<hl> It has a solid plot, lots of action <hl> , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at.


Question: How is the scene?

The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY!

Answer: KingKong

<hl> The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. <hl> It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY!

The best <hl> KingKong <hl> movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY!


Question: How's the film?

The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello.Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or "Statey," who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang.Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman.Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story. You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film.The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a "Hollywood Ending."The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film!

Answer: The Departed is a much deeper version of the story

The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello. Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or "Statey," who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang. Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman. Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. <hl> Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story . <hl> You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film. The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a "Hollywood Ending. "The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film!

The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello.Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or "Statey," who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang.Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman.Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. Exactly as I predicted, <hl> The Departed is a much deeper version of the story <hl>. You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film.The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a "Hollywood Ending."The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film!

Exactly as I predicted, <hl> The Departed is a much deeper version of the story <hl> .


Question: How is the effect?

I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always  planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman  movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like.I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work.Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off.Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job  crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted.  Still he makes the best of the part.When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies.  So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said. When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that  looked great and just how it should look.  Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is.

Answer: the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said

I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like. I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work. Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off. Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted. Still he makes the best of the part. When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies. So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? <hl> Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said . <hl> When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that looked great and just how it should look. Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is.

I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like.I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work.Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off.Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted. Still he makes the best of the part.When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies. So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? Plus <hl> the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said <hl>. When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that looked great and just how it should look. Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is.

Plus <hl> the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said <hl> .


Question: Do you like cinematography?

A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film.DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a "burglar" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come.The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth.EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors.To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm.Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, "People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time." And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which.Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating.Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting.As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting.I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views.A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine "how we did it" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature.In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended.

Answer: exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended.

A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film. DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a "burglar" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come. The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth. EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors. To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm. Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, "People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time." And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which. Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating. Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting. As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting. I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views. A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine "how we did it" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature. In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. <hl> *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. <hl>

A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film.DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a "burglar" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come.The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth.EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors.To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm.Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, "People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time." And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which.Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating.Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting.As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting.I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views.A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine "how we did it" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature.In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all <hl> exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. <hl>


Question: How looks this one?

Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story. Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie.

Answer: the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story

<hl> Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story . <hl> Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie.

Still like <hl> the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story <hl>. Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie.

Still like <hl> the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story <hl> .