Question: Who is the main character of this movie?

Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching "Shrek." Let me explain. I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped "Shrek" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in "Shrek" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like "Toy Story," but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center.Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion.Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part."Shrek" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, "Shrek" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, "You think he's trying to compensate for something?" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged.I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor.

Answer: Shrek

<hl> Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching " Shrek ." Let me explain. <hl> I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped "Shrek" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in "Shrek" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like "Toy Story," but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center. Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion. Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part. "Shrek" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, "Shrek" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, "You think he's trying to compensate for something?" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged. I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor.

Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching "<hl> Shrek <hl>." Let me explain. I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped "Shrek" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in "Shrek" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like "Toy Story," but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center.Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion.Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part."Shrek" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, "Shrek" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, "You think he's trying to compensate for something?" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged.I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor.

Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching " <hl> Shrek <hl> ." Let me explain.


Question: What was the depth of the characters?

This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film.What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray.The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect, and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction.I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer.It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable.

Answer: are perfect

This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film. What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray. <hl> The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. <hl> With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction. I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer. It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable.

This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film.What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray.The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) <hl> are perfect <hl>, and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction.I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer.It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable.

The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) <hl> are perfect <hl> , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling.


Question: How do you like the transfer?

When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move.  What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense.  My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him.  That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween.The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen.  This has a fantastic extra. It's called "Fast Facts". If you set the setting's for the "Fast Facts" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have.

Answer: The transfer to blu ray is wonderful!

When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot. This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween. <hl> The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. <hl> The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called "Fast Facts". If you set the setting's for the "Fast Facts" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie. This is a classic and a must have.

When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween.<hl> The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! <hl> The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called "Fast Facts". If you set the setting's for the "Fast Facts" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have.


Question: How is a cinematography wonderful?

If you like the so-called "art film" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good. But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a "disaster movie". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how "melancholic" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable.The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it.

Answer: It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good

If you like the so-called "art film" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. <hl> It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good . <hl> But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a "disaster movie". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how "melancholic" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable. The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it.

If you like the so-called "art film" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. <hl> It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good <hl>. But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a "disaster movie". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how "melancholic" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable.The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it.

<hl> It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good <hl> .


Question: How do you like the plot?

Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't.But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well.Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws.I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the "preachiness" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says "we have a problem and it looks like: *this*" and then leaves us to sort it all out.And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film.

Answer: complaining

Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't. But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well. Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. <hl> Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. <hl> Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws. I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the "preachiness" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says "we have a problem and it looks like: *this*" and then leaves us to sort it all out. And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film.

Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't.But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well.Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are <hl> complaining <hl> how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws.I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the "preachiness" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says "we have a problem and it looks like: *this*" and then leaves us to sort it all out.And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film.


Question: What do you think about the voice?

Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better.The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird.I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. It was a nice voice, sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice.At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger.The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the "present," the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense.I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see "The Phantom of the Opera," it will be on the stage.

Answer: It was a nice voice

Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better. The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird. I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. <hl> It was a nice voice , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. <hl> And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice. At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger. The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the "present," the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense. I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see "The Phantom of the Opera," it will be on the stage.

Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better.The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird.I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. <hl> It was a nice voice <hl>, sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice.At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger.The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the "present," the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense.I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see "The Phantom of the Opera," it will be on the stage.

<hl> It was a nice voice <hl> , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house.


Question: Is the actor a funny acting?

It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't.  This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed!

Answer: many of them aren't

<hl> It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't . <hl> This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed!

It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so <hl> many of them aren't <hl>. This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed!

It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so <hl> many of them aren't <hl> .


Question: How is the picture?

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant!

Answer: Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here. And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. <hl> Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED . <hl> Watching these films will be an annual event for me. Brilliant!

It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. <hl> Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED <hl>. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant!

<hl> Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55" LED <hl> .


Question: What is the quality of the picture?

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

Answer: the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! <hl> The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored . <hl> The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, <hl> the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored <hl>. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)

The clarity is unbelievable, <hl> the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored <hl> .


Question: Which film is better?

The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit.The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product.The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol.As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope.The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen.Verdict: See In Theaters![...]

Answer: The Hobbit

<hl> The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. <hl> It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit. The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product. The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol. As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope. The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen. Verdict: See In Theaters! [...]

<hl> The Hobbit <hl> has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit.The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product.The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol.As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope.The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen.Verdict: See In Theaters![...]


Question: How is story?

I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. This is very true-life film in general. The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life.Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, "Sideways" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears.

Answer: This is very true-life film in general

I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. <hl> This is very true-life film in general . <hl> The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life. Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, "Sideways" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears.

I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. <hl> This is very true-life film in general <hl>. The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life.Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, "Sideways" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears.

<hl> This is very true-life film in general <hl> .


Question: How is the documentary?

This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "The Great Escape" for fantasy fans.This movie is wonderfully filmed, acted and produced. The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable.One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit.This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp.The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable.It is an essential component of any DVD library.

Answer: This movie is wonderfully filmed

This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "The Great Escape" for fantasy fans. <hl> This movie is wonderfully filmed , acted and produced. <hl> The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable. One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit. This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp. The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable. It is an essential component of any DVD library.

This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "The Great Escape" for fantasy fans.<hl> This movie is wonderfully filmed <hl>, acted and produced. The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable.One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit.This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp.The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable.It is an essential component of any DVD library.

<hl> This movie is wonderfully filmed <hl> , acted and produced.


Question: How is movie?

I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding.Now for the positive. The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair.All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light.

Answer: the failed wedding

I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. <hl> I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding .Now for the positive. <hl> The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair. All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light.

I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - <hl> the failed wedding <hl>.Now for the positive. The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair.All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light.

I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - <hl> the failed wedding <hl> .Now for the positive.


Question: What is the pop band?

I love the Eagles.  I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time.  But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office.  It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there.  OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me.  It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979.  The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound.  Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous.  While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg,  the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally.  It's like their all  playing on auto pilot.  Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting.  Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time.  Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5  guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence.  Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean.

Answer: Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean

I love the Eagles. I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time. But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office. It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there. OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me. It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979. The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound. Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous. While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg, the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally. It's like their all playing on auto pilot. Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting. Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time. Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5 guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence. <hl> Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean . <hl>

I love the Eagles. I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time. But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office. It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there. OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me. It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979. The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound. Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous. While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg, the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally. It's like their all playing on auto pilot. Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting. Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time. Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5 guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence. <hl> Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean <hl>.

<hl> Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean <hl> .


Question: How do you like the film?

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

Answer: The movie is dark

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. <hl> The movie is dark , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. <hl> The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. <hl> The movie is dark <hl>, action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.

<hl> The movie is dark <hl> , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah.


Question: What about the picture quality?

I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful. I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating?

Answer: the picture is awful

<hl> I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful . <hl> I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating?

I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition <hl> the picture is awful <hl>. I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating?

I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition <hl> the picture is awful <hl> .


Question: How is the pace?

There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun). It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure.

Answer: The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun)

There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). <hl> The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) . <hl> It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure.

There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). <hl> The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) <hl>. It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure.

<hl> The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) <hl> .


Question: Is a good story to the audience?

"You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband.As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me.The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film, so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns.

Answer: audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film

"You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband. As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me. The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). <hl> Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. <hl> No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns.

"You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband.As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me.The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, <hl> audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film <hl>, so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns.

Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, <hl> audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film <hl> , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg.


Question: How good is this episode?

Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new "Superman" power! They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world.

Answer: I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new "Superman" power

Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. <hl> I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new "Superman" power ! <hl> They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world.

Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. <hl> I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new "Superman" power <hl>! They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world.

<hl> I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new "Superman" power <hl> !


Question: Where does the plot become fun?

When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny. The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all.

Answer: And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny

When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. <hl> And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny . <hl> The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all.

When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. <hl> And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny <hl>. The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all.

<hl> And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny <hl> .