Q: As with a bunch of guys at school we must give this a thumbs up. Even the Grim Ripper made us smile. Those two alien things made me laugh, Bill and Ted were the stupidest yet the funnest in the entire movie. This is a lot better than the first one. And yet for some reason I feel that it misses something. Something big. Something important. Made a better house and girlfriends. No, I'd say better villains. Use clones instead of robots.I gave this a 7 out of 10 because of those two robotic doinks.

The Grim Ripper, don't be scared he's not the deathy kind, is funny. When he fell from the sky I split a gut. Splat, I'm not sure about those aliens. What where they? Scientists? No way. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...

Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").

Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....

I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one... OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: In the same tune as his Americana Drums Along the Mohawk, John Ford captures American history in a way that is fictional yet very believable. Henry Fonda made three consecutive films in this era with Ford and all three are about a certain time and place with emphasis on the setting and the cultural surroundings. In Mohawk, pioneer America is in full bloom with Americans fending for themselves against Indians and other forces. Here, Ford shows us 19th century America; a time when invention and creativity were beginning to blossom and this nation truly was becoming great. Amongst it all was a tall, lanky, young lawyer from Illinois named Abe Lincoln and this film fictionalizes his life as a lawyer, foreshadowing the greatness he would later accomplish.

Fonda is superb in this movie, capturing the essence of what is considered to be the persona of Lincoln, although no one knows exactly what he was like then. The sets and supporting cast also work well together and give a unique balance in Ford's picturesque of the American dream and its many forms. This is not a film to be taken literally but rather symbolically, showing that Lincoln was indeed warming up for the events in his life that were to creates his legacy. We even get some scenes between him and a young Mary Todd; and it is hard to see how they did end up together but that is not the point. I believe this is simply a tribute to the greatness of Lincoln, widely regarded as the greatest American president. His quiet and straightforward demeanor was rare then and would be today. Indeed, our government surely needs more men like him. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative