Question: How is picture quality?

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 images are vivid and sharp

The images are vivid and sharp .

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. <hl> The images are vivid and sharp . <hl> 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.The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. <hl> The images are vivid and sharp <hl>. 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.

<hl> The images are vivid and sharp <hl> .


Question: How is the direct?

Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people.As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today.Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing.So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you.

Answer: Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk

<hl> Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. <hl> The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people. As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today. Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing. So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you.

<hl> Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk <hl>, Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people.As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today.Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing.So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you.

<hl> Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk <hl> , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy.


Question: What did you think of this movie?

Heard about this movie for a long time. If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it.

Answer: this movie is well worth it

Heard about this movie for a long time. <hl> If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it . <hl>

Heard about this movie for a long time. If you like musicals in Opera style, <hl> this movie is well worth it <hl>.

If you like musicals in Opera style, <hl> this movie is well worth it <hl> .


Question: What do you prefer to broadcast?

I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out.  We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film.  We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it.  It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil.  Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless.  Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story.DVD extras are plentiful and fun.  The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack.  Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, "Off the Record", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors.This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive.  Highly recommended.

Answer: without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it

I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out. We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film. <hl> We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it . <hl> It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil. Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless. Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story. DVD extras are plentiful and fun. The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack. Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, "Off the Record", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors. This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive. Highly recommended.

I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out. We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film. We finally decided to try this movie <hl> without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it <hl>. It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil. Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless. Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story.DVD extras are plentiful and fun. The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack. Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, "Off the Record", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors.This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive. Highly recommended.

We finally decided to try this movie <hl> without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it <hl> .


Question: How is the character?

I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie.  Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches.  Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh.  But the whole plot and story are so lame.  I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion.

Answer: I really like Ben Stiller which

<hl> I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie. <hl> Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches. Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh. But the whole plot and story are so lame. I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion.

<hl> I really like Ben Stiller which <hl> is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie. Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches. Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh. But the whole plot and story are so lame. I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion.


Question: What did you think of the dvd version of that movie?

Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book?  I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film!  I liked all the actors; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion.Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King.Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain.Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties.  However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David.  The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire!  A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one.My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore.

Answer: I liked the film!  I liked all the actors

Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book? <hl> I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same. <hl> The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion. Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King. Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain. Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties. However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David. The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire! A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one. My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore.

Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book? I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say <hl> I liked the film! I liked all the actors <hl>; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion.Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King.Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain.Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties. However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David. The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire! A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one.My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore.

I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say <hl> I liked the film! I liked all the actors <hl> ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.


Question: How is the action?

Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie.  Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste.In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale.  M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent.  As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans.  The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes.  Let's fact it:  those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening.  Or you can tell what's happening.  If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all.  It seems as though it ended several times over.That's not to say that the film is terrible.  Lackluster would be a better word.  Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next.  Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann

Answer: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening

Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste. In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale. M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent. As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans. The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes. <hl> Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening . <hl> Or you can tell what's happening. If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all. It seems as though it ended several times over. That's not to say that the film is terrible. Lackluster would be a better word. Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next. Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann

Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste.In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale. M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent. As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans. The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes. Let's fact it: <hl> those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening <hl>. Or you can tell what's happening. If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all. It seems as though it ended several times over.That's not to say that the film is terrible. Lackluster would be a better word. Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next. Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann

Let's fact it: <hl> those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening <hl> .


Question: What do you think about the movie?

What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!!  This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content!  You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye".  They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction.  They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects.  You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards.  The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0.  There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!!  Amazing!  Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular.  This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do.

Answer: the transfer is wonderful

What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!! This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content! You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye". They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction. They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects. You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards. The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0. There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!! Amazing! <hl> Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular. <hl> This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do.

What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!! This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content! You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye". They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction. They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects. You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards. The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0. There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!! Amazing! Needless to say, <hl> the transfer is wonderful <hl> and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular. This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do.


Question: Is the music cool?

RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on  A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to.

Answer: RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set

<hl> RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set . <hl> I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to.

<hl> RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set <hl>. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to.

<hl> RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set <hl> .


Question: How is cinematography?

While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, "We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas."The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it. The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens.

Answer: "The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo

While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, "We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas. <hl> "The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it. <hl> The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens.

While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, "We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas.<hl> "The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo <hl> but that was really about it. The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens.


Question: How do yo rate the dvd of the tv?

The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set.The picture quality and sound are excellent. The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own.

Answer: The picture quality and sound are excellent

The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set. <hl> The picture quality and sound are excellent . <hl> The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own.

The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set.<hl> The picture quality and sound are excellent <hl>. The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own.

<hl> The picture quality and sound are excellent <hl> .


Question: Which is the moral of the weekend?

This is a great movie. The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson. The music and animation are right on target!

Answer: The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson

This is a great movie. <hl> The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson . <hl> The music and animation are right on target!

This is a great movie. <hl> The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson <hl>. The music and animation are right on target!

<hl> The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson <hl> .


Question: What do you think about message?

The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption.  The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film?  What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix.On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top.  It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best.The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces.I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point.  Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message.  If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure.Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level.  I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense.

Answer: If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure

The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption. The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film? What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix. On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top. It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best. The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces. I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point. Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message. <hl> If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level. <hl> I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense.

The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption. The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film? What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix.On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top. It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best.The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces.I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point. Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message. <hl> If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure <hl>.Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level. I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense.

<hl> If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure <hl> .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level.


Question: Is one of the better music pieces?

I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. And Taken 2 is how the movie ends. I wanted to see how it ends.

Answer: And Taken 2 is how the movie ends

And Taken 2 is how the movie ends .

I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. <hl> And Taken 2 is how the movie ends . <hl> I wanted to see how it ends.

I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. <hl> And Taken 2 is how the movie ends <hl>. I wanted to see how it ends.

<hl> And Taken 2 is how the movie ends <hl> .


Question: How is the thing?

I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie, because they did a very bad job of story telling! I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all.I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year.Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story.Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called "Traffik" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable...So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story.I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not.I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it.  I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie.If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort...

Answer: did not like the movie

<hl> I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie , because they did a very bad job of story telling! <hl> I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all. I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year. Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story. Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called "Traffik" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable... So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story. I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not. I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it. I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie. If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort...

I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I <hl> did not like the movie <hl>, because they did a very bad job of story telling! I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all.I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year.Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story.Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called "Traffik" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable...So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story.I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not.I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it. I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie.If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort...

I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I <hl> did not like the movie <hl> , because they did a very bad job of story telling!


Question: How do you like the story?

Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre.  Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance.  The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind.  I am a big fan of science fiction!  Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer.  I was not disappointed with this film!  Oblivion is a film that makes you think.  When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on.  When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together.  I like science fiction films that can do that.  This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone.  It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend.The special effects of this movie are fantastic.  This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it.  The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done.The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about.  Morgan Freeman's character is also likable.  The other characters though are pretty bland.Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning.  There is not much action in this movie either.  The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it.  The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is.  However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film.

Answer: an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre

<hl> Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre . <hl> Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance. The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind. I am a big fan of science fiction! Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer. I was not disappointed with this film! Oblivion is a film that makes you think. When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on. When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together. I like science fiction films that can do that. This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone. It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend. The special effects of this movie are fantastic. This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it. The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done. The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about. Morgan Freeman's character is also likable. The other characters though are pretty bland. Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning. There is not much action in this movie either. The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it. The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is. However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film.

Oblivion is <hl> an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre <hl>. Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance. The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind. I am a big fan of science fiction! Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer. I was not disappointed with this film! Oblivion is a film that makes you think. When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on. When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together. I like science fiction films that can do that. This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone. It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend.The special effects of this movie are fantastic. This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it. The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done.The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about. Morgan Freeman's character is also likable. The other characters though are pretty bland.Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning. There is not much action in this movie either. The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it. The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is. However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film.

Oblivion is <hl> an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre <hl> .


Question: How was the film?

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case.  First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance.  However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting.  The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes.  I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice.  Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence.  Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role.  I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.'  After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film.  Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life.  Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise.  The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically.  I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.

Answer: The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic. Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story. <hl> The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically. <hl> I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.

I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.<hl> The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down <hl> dramatically. I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.


Question: How about animation?

Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet!  So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR.  We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days.The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane.  This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis.  In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running.  The best scare team at Monsters, Inc.  is John "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal).  One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis.  Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic.  Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to "Boo", risking health and careers to get her back to her home.  In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters.The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier.  John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal.  In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today.  The animation is stunning, and the story is lots of fun.  Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them.  The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for.There are two discs here.  On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format.  Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter.  English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming "Finding Nemo" and Disney's "Lilo & Stitch" are also here.  Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards.  The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen.Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, "Mike's Car"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, "For the Birds"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to "in" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated.  There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs.Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice).  With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features.Highest recommendation.

Answer: The animation is stunning

Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet! So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR. We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days. The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane. This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis. In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running. The best scare team at Monsters, Inc. is John "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal). One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis. Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic. Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to "Boo", risking health and careers to get her back to her home. In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters. The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier. John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal. In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today. <hl> The animation is stunning , and the story is lots of fun. <hl> Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them. The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for. There are two discs here. On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format. Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter. English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming "Finding Nemo" and Disney's "Lilo & Stitch" are also here. Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards. The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen. Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, "Mike's Car"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, "For the Birds"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to "in" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated. There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs. Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice). With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features. Highest recommendation.

Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet! So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR. We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days.The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane. This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis. In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running. The best scare team at Monsters, Inc. is John "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal). One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis. Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic. Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to "Boo", risking health and careers to get her back to her home. In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters.The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier. John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal. In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today. <hl> The animation is stunning <hl>, and the story is lots of fun. Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them. The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for.There are two discs here. On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format. Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter. English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming "Finding Nemo" and Disney's "Lilo & Stitch" are also here. Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards. The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen.Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, "Mike's Car"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, "For the Birds"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to "in" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated. There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs.Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice). With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features.Highest recommendation.

<hl> The animation is stunning <hl> , and the story is lots of fun.