Q: The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.

Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort). OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...

The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)

If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.

I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: "Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.

In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.

And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.

2/10. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative