IN: Review: After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is one of the best made movies from 2002. Maybe it is not the best movie, but it looks the best, has great acting and is directed perfectly by Sam Mendes, who debuted with 'American Beauty'.

It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).

In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.

Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: The 1983 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This "Jane Eyre" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book).

The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in "Scarlet", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...)

Some people say that this "Jane Eyre" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough "kissing scenes". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some "Hollywood movie" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include "crazy, madly in love" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as "boring and old-fashioned". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book.

I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton!
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive