Question: Does this movie have a good expressions of face?

Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. "Closer" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a "relationship movie". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately.The first thing that I noticed about "Closer" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume "Closer" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous.The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like "I couldn't lie to you....because I love you." Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, "Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it." Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion.I can't say "Closer" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach "Closer" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it.The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for "The Blower's Daughter", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits.  Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French.

Answer: Closer

<hl> Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. " Closer " is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. <hl> It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a "relationship movie". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately. The first thing that I noticed about "Closer" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume "Closer" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous. The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like "I couldn't lie to you....because I love you." Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, "Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it." Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion. I can't say "Closer" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach "Closer" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it. The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for "The Blower's Daughter", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits. Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French.

Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. "<hl> Closer <hl>" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a "relationship movie". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately.The first thing that I noticed about "Closer" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume "Closer" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous.The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like "I couldn't lie to you....because I love you." Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, "Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it." Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion.I can't say "Closer" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach "Closer" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it.The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for "The Blower's Daughter", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits. Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French.

Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. " <hl> Closer <hl> " is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures.


Question: Why do I have a better animation?

The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days.  But the animation is superb.  Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life.

Answer: But the animation is superb

But the animation is superb .

The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days. <hl> But the animation is superb . <hl> Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life.

The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days. <hl> But the animation is superb <hl>. Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life.


Question: What do you think about the interview?

Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money. This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor.The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city.Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material.So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky.Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception.This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision.

Answer: thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money

Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. <hl> One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money . <hl> This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor. The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city. Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material. So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky. Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception. This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, <hl> thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money <hl>. This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor.The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city.Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material.So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky.Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception.This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision.

One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, <hl> thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money <hl> .


Question: How is film?

Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. Although it will probably never be included in a list of 'alltime great films' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while.The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels.Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about?

Answer: alltime great films

Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. <hl> Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' alltime great films ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup. <hl> Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while. The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels. Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about?

Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. Although it will probably never be included in a list of '<hl> alltime great films <hl>' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while.The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels.Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about?

Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' <hl> alltime great films <hl> ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.


Question: What is your overall opinion about this series?

Many disks were damaged beyond use.The series was great, what I could watch of it.It was obvious the product was repackaged and used.

Answer: The series was great

Many disks were damaged beyond use. <hl> The series was great , what I could watch of it. <hl> It was obvious the product was repackaged and used.

Many disks were damaged beyond use.<hl> The series was great <hl>, what I could watch of it.It was obvious the product was repackaged and used.

<hl> The series was great <hl> , what I could watch of it.


Question: Was a short match?

This is Mudd.  This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title.  This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania.  I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points.  Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title.  This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles.  This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good.  Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten.  This match was long but it delievered.  HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title.  This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX.  The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble.  Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight.  This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do.  Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown!  (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match.  The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title.  This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas.  Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX.  I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10.  But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J.

Answer: This match was long but it delievered

This match was long but it delievered .

This is Mudd. This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title. This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania. I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points. Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title. This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles. This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good. Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten. <hl> This match was long but it delievered . <hl> HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title. This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX. The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble. Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight. This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do. Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown! (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match. The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title. This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas. Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX. I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10. But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J.

This is Mudd. This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title. This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania. I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points. Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title. This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles. This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good. Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten. <hl> This match was long but it delievered <hl>. HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title. This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX. The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble. Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight. This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do. Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown! (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match. The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title. This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas. Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX. I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10. But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J.

<hl> This match was long but it delievered <hl> .


Question: How is the color?

This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done.I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great, Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing.They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning.

Answer: the colors are great

This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done. I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. <hl> and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. <hl> The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing. They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning.

This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done.I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but <hl> the colors are great <hl>, Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing.They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning.

and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but <hl> the colors are great <hl> , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable.


Question: What effects does that medication cause?

If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie.  The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan).  Special effects were good, but a few were fake looking.  I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane.Recommend this movie.

Answer: Special effects were good

If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie. The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan). <hl> Special effects were good , but a few were fake looking. <hl> I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Recommend this movie.

If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie. The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan). <hl> Special effects were good <hl>, but a few were fake looking. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane.Recommend this movie.

<hl> Special effects were good <hl> , but a few were fake looking.


Question: How is the feeling?

I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. I felt sadened, exhilarated,  touched and frustrated all at once. The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking.

Answer: I felt sadened, exhilarated,  touched and frustrated

I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. <hl> I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once. <hl> The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking.

I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. <hl> I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated <hl> all at once. The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking.


Question: How is the lot?

This film made a lot of money but it sucked. Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs

Answer: This film made a lot of money but it sucked

<hl> This film made a lot of money but it sucked . <hl> Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs

<hl> This film made a lot of money but it sucked <hl>. Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs

<hl> This film made a lot of money but it sucked <hl> .


Question: What do you think about the special effect?

This is definitely Saturday matinee material.Script quite hackneyed.However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game.

Answer: However the special effects are quite good

This is definitely Saturday matinee material. Script quite hackneyed. <hl> However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game. <hl>

This is definitely Saturday matinee material.Script quite hackneyed.<hl> However the special effects are quite good <hl> and the cast is game.


Question: Is that movie good?

Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'.  It is fun and exciting and engaging, but I find it also to be slightly forgettable.  It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government.  He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things.  He was, simply put, a genius.  Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is `jovial'.  It is a happy fun film.  Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely.  It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable).  While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it.  That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film.  Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful.  Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably.  A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances.  I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor.  This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year.  Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here.  As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me.  But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples).  Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience.  It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.

Answer: exciting and engaging

Ok, not evil, but whatever. This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'. <hl> It is fun and exciting and engaging , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. <hl> It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later. Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind. One thing to describe this film is `jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character. Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.

Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'. It is fun and <hl> exciting and engaging <hl>, but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is `jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.

It is fun and <hl> exciting and engaging <hl> , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable.


Question: How is movie?

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good.

Answer: the movie was very graphic

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. <hl> Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker <hl> but the concept was good.

I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that <hl> the movie was very graphic <hl> as far the joker but the concept was good.


Question: How's the idea?

The premise was interesting, but I thought there were some major holes in the plot.  I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing.

Answer: The premise was interesting

<hl> The premise was interesting , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot. <hl> I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing.

<hl> The premise was interesting <hl>, but I thought there were some major holes in the plot. I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing.

<hl> The premise was interesting <hl> , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot.


Question: How can you describe the action?

Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott.Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk.Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone.The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are.Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense. It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley.A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled.

Answer: is plentiful and intense

Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott. Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk. Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone. The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are. <hl> Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense . <hl> It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley. A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled.

Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott.Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk.Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone.The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are.Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, <hl> is plentiful and intense <hl>. It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley.A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled.

Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, <hl> is plentiful and intense <hl> .


Question: How was the series?

The show is interesting, with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest.  What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD.  I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered.  The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder.  I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard.  Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails.  It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging.The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating.  Monroe is my favorite character by far so far.

Answer: The show is interesting

<hl> The show is interesting , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest. <hl> What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD. I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered. The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder. I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard. Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails. It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging. The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating. Monroe is my favorite character by far so far.

<hl> The show is interesting <hl>, with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest. What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD. I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered. The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder. I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard. Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails. It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging.The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating. Monroe is my favorite character by far so far.

<hl> The show is interesting <hl> , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest.


Question: How is the movie?

It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations.  Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie.The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI.  But this is a razor's edge.  In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel.  It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why?  I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well?  Cars, too?  Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting?  The point is - where does it end?  And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted?  The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial.  Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be.  When will a tree be a tree again?  A sky...a sky?  When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there?  When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are?  When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing.  I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about.  Substance, yes, over style.

Answer: It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most

<hl> It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations. <hl> Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie. The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI. But this is a razor's edge. In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel. It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why? I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well? Cars, too? Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting? The point is - where does it end? And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted? The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial. Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be. When will a tree be a tree again? A sky...a sky? When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there? When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are? When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing. I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about. Substance, yes, over style.

<hl> It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most <hl> of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations. Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie.The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI. But this is a razor's edge. In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel. It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why? I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well? Cars, too? Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting? The point is - where does it end? And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted? The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial. Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be. When will a tree be a tree again? A sky...a sky? When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there? When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are? When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing. I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about. Substance, yes, over style.


Question: How is actor?

I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth.  I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs.  It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had.  It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit.  It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit.The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic.  Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker.  It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb.  I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail.  Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before.  He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work.  He is not doing this to 'cash in'.  If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though.  He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth.  Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times.  This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format.

Answer: The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic

I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans. I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money. First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit. <hl> The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic . <hl> Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles. The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film. The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him. A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format.

I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit.<hl> The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic <hl>. Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format.

<hl> The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic <hl> .


Question: Who wrote the interaction that took place between Jeff and Barbra?

Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie.  The dialogue is crisp and witty, and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it.  I loved the gag reel, too.  I can't wait for the next one to come out!

Answer: The dialogue is crisp and witty

Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie. <hl> The dialogue is crisp and witty , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it. <hl> I loved the gag reel, too. I can't wait for the next one to come out!

Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie. <hl> The dialogue is crisp and witty <hl>, and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it. I loved the gag reel, too. I can't wait for the next one to come out!

<hl> The dialogue is crisp and witty <hl> , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it.


Question: How is the film?

What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic.There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles.I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic.Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers...........

Answer: timeless

<hl> What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? <hl> Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic. There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles. I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic. Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers...........

What would it take to make a movie as <hl> timeless <hl> and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic.There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles.I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic.Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers...........


Question: Why her character is really enjoyable?

I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite.

Answer: every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality

I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. <hl> I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. <hl> I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite.

I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. I love the fact <hl> every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality <hl> and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite.


Question: How is the quality of movie?

As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z".  The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes.  I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film.  The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well).  Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror.  Skip this one, in my opinion.

Answer: The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes.

As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z". <hl> The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film. <hl> The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well). Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror. Skip this one, in my opinion.

As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z". <hl> The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. <hl> I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film. The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well). Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror. Skip this one, in my opinion.