Question: How is match?

80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. Match Rating 7/10.4. Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time.

Answer: Match Rating 7/10.4

Match Rating 7/10.4 .

80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. <hl> Match Rating 7/10.4 . <hl> Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time.

80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. <hl> Match Rating 7/10.4 <hl>. Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time.


Question: Does this movie  is free of artifacts of the type you find in old film?

Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale)  into Batman until half way through the new "Batman Begins."And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able  to combat the ills  and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers.Nolan's "Batman Begins" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction.Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character: he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in "The Machinist," in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax.What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in "28 Days Later") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his  psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His "stuff" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster."Batman Begins" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up.

Answer: beautifully written movie character

Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale) into Batman until half way through the new "Batman Begins. "And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able to combat the ills and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers. Nolan's "Batman Begins" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction. <hl> Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. <hl> It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in "The Machinist," in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax. What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in "28 Days Later") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His "stuff" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster. "Batman Begins" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up.

Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale) into Batman until half way through the new "Batman Begins."And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able to combat the ills and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers.Nolan's "Batman Begins" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction.Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, <hl> beautifully written movie character <hl>: he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in "The Machinist," in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax.What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in "28 Days Later") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His "stuff" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster."Batman Begins" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up.

Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, <hl> beautifully written movie character <hl> : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes.


Question: How is the write of the story?

I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there.Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker.Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off.So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last..Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original.Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley.He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season.Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season.I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all.Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day!

Answer: The writing is so good

I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there. Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker. Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off. So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last.. Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original. Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. <hl> The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is. <hl> All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley. He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season. Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season. I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all. Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day!

I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there.Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker.Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off.So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last..Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original.Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. <hl> The writing is so good <hl> in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley.He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season.Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season.I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all.Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day!


Question: What is the quality of the music?

In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city.A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Ponyo" and "Coraline", although "Up" was very good but very overrated. The makers of "Aladdin" and "Little Mermaid" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see.This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD.

Answer: the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great

In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city. A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Ponyo" and "Coraline", although "Up" was very good but very overrated. The makers of "Aladdin" and "Little Mermaid" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. <hl> The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. <hl> The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see. This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD.

In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city.A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Ponyo" and "Coraline", although "Up" was very good but very overrated. The makers of "Aladdin" and "Little Mermaid" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, <hl> the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great <hl> and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see.This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD.


Question: Can we enjoy the movie along with our family?

An outstanding romantic comedy, 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie "BIG" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least.  All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears.  The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face.  It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching!

Answer: An outstanding romantic comedy

<hl> An outstanding romantic comedy , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie "BIG" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength. <hl> Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least. All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature. In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching!

<hl> An outstanding romantic comedy <hl>, 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie "BIG" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least. All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching!

<hl> An outstanding romantic comedy <hl> , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie "BIG" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.


Question: What do you think about setting?

This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it.However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai.As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner.Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren "changes sides" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army.The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai.The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well.As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed.

Answer: This film has been compared

<hl> This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. <hl> A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it. However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai. As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner. Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren "changes sides" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army. The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai. The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well. As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed.

<hl> This film has been compared <hl> (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it.However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai.As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner.Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren "changes sides" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army.The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai.The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well.As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed.


Question: How is the dialogue?

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin.  The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.

Answer: dialogue is laughably

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there. But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. <hl> I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. <hl> Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since. Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.

First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the <hl> dialogue is laughably <hl> bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.


Question: How is the movie?

This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it.  Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that.  However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle.  Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly.  At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate.  (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.)  The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras.  A great bargain for the price.  This film deserves a two-disc presentation.

Answer: Civil War films

<hl> This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it. <hl> Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that. However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle. Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly. At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate. (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.) The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras. A great bargain for the price. This film deserves a two-disc presentation.

This is obviously one of the best <hl> Civil War films <hl> ever made, with only Glory rivaling it. Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that. However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle. Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly. At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate. (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.) The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras. A great bargain for the price. This film deserves a two-disc presentation.


Question: How was the cinematography?

This is no hype, this is a great, great movie.  A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established.  Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is  meticulous and authentic.  The past is captured with intelligence and care.Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace.  His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely.  With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers.  Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves..  Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well.As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before.  Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster.  Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman.  And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes.  Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine.  But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin.  Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships.Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer.  A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season.This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while.  First rate in all departments.  Not to be missed.

Answer: Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is  meticulous and authentic

This is no hype, this is a great, great movie. A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established. <hl> Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic . <hl> The past is captured with intelligence and care. Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace. His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely. With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers. Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves.. Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well. As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before. Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster. Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman. And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes. Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine. But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin. Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships. Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer. A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season. This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while. First rate in all departments. Not to be missed.

This is no hype, this is a great, great movie. A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established. <hl> Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic <hl>. The past is captured with intelligence and care.Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace. His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely. With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers. Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves.. Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well.As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before. Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster. Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman. And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes. Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine. But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin. Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships.Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer. A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season.This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while. First rate in all departments. Not to be missed.

<hl> Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic <hl> .


Question: How would you rate the fight between the two karate champions of Kenya and Uganda?

It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad.

Answer: attacked by a facehugger dies too fast

It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. <hl> Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. <hl> I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad.

It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was <hl> attacked by a facehugger dies too fast <hl> (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad.


Question: Is film good?

When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason.The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series.A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them.Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing.This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice.

Answer: as good as the other films

When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason. The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series. A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them. Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing. <hl> This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. <hl> The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice.

When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason.The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series.A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them.Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing.This is nowhere near <hl> as good as the other films <hl> in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice.


Question: Which is your favourite character?

I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots, the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum.  Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit.  The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular.

Answer: the plots

<hl> I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum. <hl> Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit. The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular.

I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, <hl> the plots <hl>, the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum. Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit. The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular.

I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, <hl> the plots <hl> , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum.


Question: How is character?

Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly'.When I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o

Answer: Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly'

Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! <hl> I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' .When <hl> I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o

Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and <hl> Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' <hl>.When I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o

I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and <hl> Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' <hl> .When