Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

Unbelievable, inconsistent storyline, poor acting (except from Hugh Jackman) and an extremely shallow concept overall. Not one but two scenes of Jackman hacking to order, with 60-second countdowns. The provision of two completely incompatible alternate-ending twists (on the DVD release) just shows how bankrupt and immoral such film-making is. An insult to anyone with an IQ of over 50.Berry's breasts are nice though.

My grandma got this as a Christmas present for me and my brother soon as it came out. i was 5 at the time and i was impressed with it. The idea of the animal's mouth moving was probably a first in this movie. i hadn't seen it before, not in Milo and Otis, or napoleon.anyway, Babe is a runt who is separated from his brothers and sisters when his mother is taken away to be slaughtered. he's taken to a fun fair where farmer hoggett wins him by guessing his weight. he goes to live with the sheepdogs and decides to try what they do; herding sheep. and thus beginning his adventure with sheep.This was a very good G-rated movie, right down to the humor. Ferdinand the duck makes his voice so funny, he's half the reason you'd see this movie twice. there's minimal toilet humor (Babe calls a sheep a butt-head, if you want to consider that offensive or toilet humor) and lot of great voice acting.it's 9/10.

The Grapes of Wrath is an exceptional film, both in substance and as an artistic accomplishment. Since I did not read the book, my review is written without any prejudice. In the film we follow an extended family of small peasants, the Joads, who are expelled from their tenant farm. At first the story may seem a typical part of American history, which is of course true. For instance the illustrious folk singer Woody Guthrie had his roots in the Oklahoma dust bowl, and the eventual migration to California. I was truly fascinated by his biographic DVD "This machine kills fascists". But in fact the expulsion of small peasants is a universal theme. Already in the fifteenth century it started with the English enclosure movement. In the nineteenth century it was a recurring phenomenon in all parts of Europe. For instance, in 1903 the Flemish author Cyriel Buysse wrote a play about it ("Het gezin van Paemel"), and created one of the predecessors of Steinbeck's novel. Later a Flemish film version has been produced, which is highly recommendable. And then in the Bolshewist countries there was the forced transformation into collective farming. Although the Czechoslovak and Polish regimes shrunk from this move, which gives food for reflection. The making public of the American version through a book and subsequently a film was a courageous endeavor, since social critique is rarely welcomed (it could probably only be done because of the friendly New Deal atmosphere). Paricularly striking is the scene, where a farmer tries to prevent the demolition of his farm by threatening with a rifle. He asks the usher: "Against who should I defend myself?" The land owner? No, it is only an enterprise. The director of the enterprise? No, he just does what he is told to do. The bank? No, it simply reacts to the demand of the market. Of course the usher puts up a sham, because each and every one of these institutions is to blame (evidently in the first place the director, who has made a willful decision to break up the long-lasting business relation). The homeless farmers migrate en bloc to California (!), hoping to make a living as pickers. They live in tent camps, and are murdered by villagers, the thugs of land owners, and even the local police (especially the deputies are accomplices of the wealthy land owners). The main character is the peasants son Tom Joad (impressively portrayed by Henry Fonda). He has just served six years in prison for man slaughter, and is freed on parole. Here we see a glimpse of the family pride. When Tom returns home to Oklahoma, his family assumes: "Did you escape?" Especially grandfather is delighted: "I told you so! They can't lock up a Joad!" He and many others hold that they have a right to the Oklahoma land, because many of them died there: "It is our dust". All peasant communities share this same common isolation, caused by an apparent independence and self-provision (my grandparents were also farmers). This tends to make them inflexible. Grandpa and Grandma die during the ride to California. This does not come as a surprise, and therefore the Stalin-like director of the land owning company does not go free here. Characteristic of the small and collective peasant world is the mother of the family, who complains that she sees her family falling apart. Again Tom kills a man, this time not in self-defense. Frankly, I don't understand this aspect of the narrative. On the one side, Tom is no more a criminal than the policeman, who for no reason fires with his gun in a crowded camp of migrants and seriously wounds an innocent woman. On the other hand, it impedes the feelings of empathy and identification of the viewer/reader, and images the Joads as culpable wrong-doers. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that the Joad family (just like the Paemels) have neglected the change of time,and the agricultural revolution. This is a central point. Too often the changing policy of the society elite is far-reaching to such an extent, that the common people get no fair chance to adapt. And this can truly be called a crime. In conclusion: The Grapes of Wrath is recommended (which it doesn't need). If you like social films, see Het gezin van Paemel. Or consider reading my other reviews.

i thought that this movie was fabulously amazing and even sort of funny. Meryl streep was excellent once again and Anne Hathaway broke out of her "little girl fairy tale" mode. they both did excellent and not to mention Emily blunt, who i've never heard of till now, and would like to see a lot more of. plus, Stanley tucci was also amazing and it was a completely all around good movie. i didn't expect to like it seeing as i am a boy and i don't really like fashion, but i was taken to it and it was a pleasant surprise. it isn't gross in any way, and like i said, Meryl streep was excellent. she made me have a good mood with her performance in this movie, and i was so happy to hear that she was up for some awards, because to say that she deserved some would be the understatement of the year

You would think that the city of lights would make for a film set among many Parisian locations. However the only major landmarks we see in the film are the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre other than that the majority of the film takes place in Theo and Isabelle's apartment. The graphic nature and scenes in this film show how far Bertolucci will go to create a great film. The relationship between the three characters is one of love. Not only between Matthew and Isabelle or Theo and Isabelle, but between all three characters. The love scene in the kitchen. The masturbation scene (which I am sure secured it's NC-17 rating, that and the nudity). All in all a great piece of not only film, but art in general.

Jacob's ladder was one disturbing film. It stars Tim Robbins as Jacob Singer, and Robbins is perfect for the role. He was vulnerable and sad, and gave us a strong character we could sympathize with. If anybody could not feel sympathy for him, then there is definitely something wrong with you. Now on with the story.Jacob Singer, after returning from Vietnam where he was stabbed, begins to have hallucinations and very disturbing dreams involving his life before Vietnam and his life after. Not only that but he sees strange creatures which seem to be following him around and also at times seem to become one with the people he knows. Believing that chemical warfare in Vietnam has caused this, he goes about trying to find out what it was, and we as the viewers begin to wonder if this is just a man going slowly insane or is there some truth to what he believes.Long before M. Night Shylaman there was this gem of a picture which follows many of the same principles of Shylaman's work. Jacob's Ladder offers up a twist ending also, and it was one of the most haunting conclusions to a film ever. Once you see it you will know why. Jacob's Ladder loses some points though because it did move slowly at times, and was confusing at other times, but if you watch it through to the very end that confusion will fade and you will walk out of the theater still feeling strongly affected by what happened. I can say no more except to say that the music used at the conclusion was just about perfect.

A really good idea that looked up until half way like it was going to be almost perfect, then it turned slightly too Hollywood and not weired enough.Brilliant acting by Ralph Fiennes, and other crew, better than a lot of films I have seen recently, and is on a par with the brilliant Brazil.One to see if you like the 90's style film making (which I do) and also the slightly more twisted story lines they produce. nicely shot, and I cant falter them for that as it is one that stands slightly above the bar.A clear 7 out of 10 for its storyline and cinematography.

The best sports movies are the ones in which sports is the glue for insights into human attitudes, relationships and the spirit.Rush does very well on this count. Plus, the romanticizing of Formula 1 and the the rivalry between the methodical and the flamboyant is very entertaining.The director manages to get under the skin of the real life characters.The script builds the characters so well that you like both of them.Some great acting and witty dialogs add to the fun.Keeps you on the edge with some racy music too. For me, the movie checks many boxes.Very relatable to non F1- enthusiasts too.It transports you to the F1 season of '76 and stays with you after it's over.

I'm gonna be brutally honest here. I didn't exactly like this film. After years of hearing how it was by far "the greatest film ever made" perhaps it's expectations were too high. How can any film possibly meet expectations when expectations are nothing lower than perfection? With the knowledge that this film is universally considered the best ever made, there is no way it could possibly meet that bar especially for someone who rarely agrees with such massive popular agreement. Many scenes were enjoyable, and many were boring, but maybe I didn't "get it" or maybe I didn't want to.A large problem with this film has nothing to do with the media but the people who love it. Professors who adore it, critics who dissect and people who say they love it to sound smart and artistic. No film can possibly survive after 60 years in those conditions.You can shoot me for saying this, but the acting was overdone, and the film was very dark physically. Normally I don't mind that but in some scenes I wasn't able to make out the emotions and faces of the characters. I understand that this film was a massive undertaking as far as films that do creative things such as camera angles, mixed up narratives and things of that nature, but that does not mean its the best one out there. It served as a good first stepping stone but talented film makers have gone a long way since then.People seem so eager to praise it they forget that there are also many problems with it and that in some instances, it's greatest assets are it's greatest liabilities. While it had character development I was hoping for more, although I enjoyed the fact that the audience would have to insert their own opinions about Mr. Kane in attempt to understand him. Despite this, I wasn't that interested in this man's life or the people surrounding him, and in such a character driven film, concentrated around one man, that is a very large problem.Maybe I'm too saturated in the sugar-coated world of Hollywood but I was expecting more from this film. Many scenes were boring, and a movie can be the best ever made, but if half of its boring, whats the point? Maybe upon a second viewing I will appreciate it more. Does it deserve to be acknowledged for technical and narrative innovations? Yes. Best film ever made? No.

I thought that this movie was excellent, one of the best, very many great young actors for example Kip Pardue. He was great, and I think that we are going to see more of him in the future. Will Patton is great as always and so is Denzel Washington Bye bye / sof

What are the folks at Paramount smoking?! They must have been flying high on Crack the day they hired that 5th Rate writing hack J.J Abrams. The Franchise WAS NOT in trouble due to lack of interest the way so many pathological liars claim! Nor was the Original nor the The Next Generation out of ideas! To make such a farcical claim JUST because the writers THEY CHOSE couldn't come up with anything original is completely disingenuous! There ARE THOUSANDS OF IDEAS STILL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL AND THE NEXT GEN! It just takes a Truly imaginative and talented Writer to (ahem) demonstrate this. MAGIC BLOOD?! LOL!! I guess Abrams forgot half-way through this drivel that he was ATTEMPTING to write a Star Trek movie and wandered into a Harry Potter one. And the characters?! Talk about awful! They STINK! They are bereft of life! They have about as much personality as a piece of cardboard. Those loving these toxic waste-dump movies are the sort who enjoy watching movies in a vegetative state. I will hope and pray that the morons at Paramount will not allow Abrams ANYWHERE near Star Trek in the future. Oh and wanting Star Trek to respect the integrity and vision of Gene Roddenberry hardly makes us Real Trekkies "Purists" as one jerk called us. It makes us Loyal! Which is what these fly-by-night fans of these toxic waste-dump movies DON'T HAVE! Anytime they want me to prove them wrong and That I'm right! BRING IT! Of course I will have several demands. I also bet I could get ALL of the original Next Gen Cast to come back in some capacity or other. TOO OLD?! GO TO HADES! Only an incompetent unimaginative half-wit would be unable to use their age and fitness level to their advantage....................? Also I noticed something interesting about the bulk of those WAY OVERSELLING HOW "GREAT THE MOVIE WAS" is that they sound a LOT alike! I strongly suspect that MOST of these so-called "Independent Reviews" were in FACT ALL WRITTEN BY THE SAME PERSON USING DIFFERENT SIGN-ONS! Typical of the type of trick studios use to promote a movie that WAS NOTHING BUT A DISGUSTING WASTE OF FILM FROM BEGINNING TO END! The Sooner Abrams leaves the better! Let him go destroy some other franchise! And his employees can then write all sorts of hilariously over-the-top reviews for those movies instead! LOL!

(this review is for the uncut director's cut) just like robocop 1 and 2 had satire, this movie is a satire of serial killers, and a great one at that :-), from the name of it, it sounds like a horror movie but it's actually a gory action thriller movie, it has a great line up and they all put on great performances, especially Woody harrelson, dude is just amazing, it has nonstop hardcore action (the last twenty plus minutes is the highlight), blood and gore, and quite a bit of classic and hard rock music which fit perfectly. the reason I think this movie is better than true romance is because Woody harrelson and Juliette Lewis were the better leads than Christian slater and Patricia arquette, don't get me wrong, I thought they were great too but I gotta give the edge to Woody and Juliette. the only way to see both this and true romance are the uncut director's cuts, plain and simple ;) lol

After seeing Jaws four i thought i have officially seen the worst movie humans have ever layed eyes on. I was wrong. At first i had no interest in becoming a member of IMDb. troll 2 (the t in troll is not capitalized because i have no respect for this movie whatsoever) compelled me to become a member of IMDb and write this comment. The special effects. . . well lets just say that the best special effects they use are 10 dollar "troll" masks on sticks. The budget of this movie must have been about 150 dollars. The actors repeatedly stared at the cameras, and were terrible. All in all, Satan has reserved a firery cavern in the darkest pit of hell just for the prick who directed this bullshit discrace for a film.

I read a lot of the reviews on this before i started watching the series and because of that I thought it would be terrible but it's not! The people who are writing most of these reviews doesn't seem to be thinking about what the series is actually about. It is a Drama | Sci-Fi and a very clear one. There is a lot of drama (but that's pretty obvious when you put 100 young delinquents together without supervision) but the main idea is built around the Sci-fi! Many are complaining about how the teenagers are acting so stupid but maybe that's because the Earth is nothing like they've been taught it was, and because they've been living on a spaceship for their entire lives! Also most of them are rule-breakers so you should expect some fairly weird and stupid things to happen. Many people seem to get angry about the system that everyone over the age of 18 will be killed for any crime but that is obviously because they didn't have room for that many people and in a small space-station you can't afford to have thieves!Please give this series a chance! If you look at the reviews most of them are 1/10 but this series right now has an average of 7,5 so...there has to be a large majority who really likes it like me! A perfect balance of Drama and Sci-fi (coming from a guy who usually hates Drama :P )

This is a scandalously bad film. None of the child actors should ever be allowed to act again, and neither should they be allowed to pass on their genetic material. On a serious note, the acting is appalling, the script is trash, the plot is horrible. This film will make you cringe with embarrassment. Some of the lines were so bad that I physically recolied from the screen. please don't watch this film, it isn't even bad in a way that makes it funny, it will just make you sad. When this film was made who was it supposed to appeal to? It's an insult to the intellignece of every child who has ever watched a film. To think that the director could ever have believed that anyone( including his own family) could like this film. I have written many better scripts than this one (although my scripts are actually quite good). Worst film ever!!

Why Christopher Nolan's movies are so popular? Until you understand that, you will continue to wonder why people spend a lot of money and time to be imprisoned into dull and boring movies; Christopher Nolan knows exactly what he's doing, and he's known it from the start. And what's that he's got for you? A prefabricated universe dominated by figures with no soul and lungs: his audience likes the excitement of drowning their little imagination again and again; for them, films have to be that deadening and useless - and once they have watched them, they might say 'that was really good' a great many time before they get reanimated - lol! that is all right, because their understanding is so nimble to realize their error, which will be forgotten much more quickly than a dream.

It's been about a decade since this film came out, and the sad truth is, the majority of people haven't learned. Reality TV is not dead, but has rather flourished, and is gradually becoming more and more perverse(indeed making the idea presented here seem almost tame by comparison, which is a very unpleasant notion to consider), digging deeper into the lowest common denominator to grab attention(worse still, it's working), and they are at least as shallow as they've always been, quite possibly worse(I won't claim that I watch them), and costing depth in real people, by abandoning it in favor of more ratings-grabbing "entertainment". Niccol is not a man who favors superficiality, or that which seems, at first glance, to be perfect, beautiful, or even right... nor is he one who keeps quiet about his view on said subject. One needs to look no further than two other movies he wrote, Gattaca and S1m0ne, both of which he also directed(he is perhaps less shrill in his protesting in the former and this, compared to S1m0ne). I've not watched much of Weir's work... to this day, only this and Dead Poets Society, which my review will immediately reveal, I did not find to be anything special. Therefore, I don't know whose idea it actually was to let the imaginary hidden cameras be our eye into the world of Truman... whether Niccol had it in the script, or Weir thought it fitting... but I commend and respect whomever thought of it. The score and music are fitting. The acting is good, all-round... Carrey surprises. Harris is marvelous. Carrey may have some sillier moments in this, but it is a film separate from his comedy work. Those seeking his typical brand of humor(which it should be noted, I am somewhat fond of) won't find that satisfied herein. Exposition is delivered with fairly good subtlety. The writing in general is excellent... Niccol hits the mark entirely, and maintains a realistic tone, steering carefully clear of the pitfall of mockery to the point of the ludicrous, which he would later fall into with S1m0ne, and his continued exploration of reality is interesting. I personally make it a point to keep up with what the man is working on. The satire and cleverness found in his work deserves recognition. This, as The Cable Guy, has some social commentary on the viewers, but on the whole, this is by far the superior film(sorry, Ben). It is but saddening that it would seem that the film caused exactly what it may have been trying to prevent. I recommend this to fans of science fiction, Andrew Niccol and Jim Carrey as a dramatic actor. 8/10

I hate people who like this film and I hate people who hate me for hating it.There is no way on gods green earth I have to "Get it" or I am stupid. Or I am part of some low brained modern trend of idiots. Or that I fully don't appreciate various art forms that are above me.I get this film. I get every scene. Its stupid.Hal the computer is not interesting. Who did his voice? All the humans in this film are like robots and Hal is like a person. Its just dumb. I hate it. I hate it very much.Anyway I tried to watch this crap on TCM a few years back. Could not. I am now watching it on TV whilst on the computer as a background life line to the boredom felt during my 2001 Odyssey experience.I cant believe I passed up on watching Demolition man on the other channel so I could watch this.

Completely unsympathetic characters. Stereotypical characterizations. Boring. I can't believe people found this funny. It's an MTV production ~ what could I have expected? Just another opportunity to point out to mindless American youth how "superior" they are. Give me a break. Aren't people tired yet of this mind control? The "nerd" wasn't even likable! I like a dumb comedy as much as the next person, but this wasn't even comical.It didn't even TRY. I really do wish there WAS a time machine so I could go back and save my $8.75. What a waste of time and money. If you feel like you want to see this... DON'T! Send me the money... I could make better use of it.

I saw this movie the day it came out, and I, my boyfriend, and all hundred or so people in the movie theater laughed our asses off for the whole movie, credit bonuses and all. Kate McKinnon is a treasure, and the entire cast was phenomenal. There wasn't a single dud joke in the entire film. This movie is a wickedly good time, and I fully intend to see it again in theaters. To the men (and it is almost entirely men) who have been complaining about this movie for one reason or another for months before its release, I'd just like to say: the franchise isn't ruined. Women can be comedy action stars, and be them insanely well. Don't believe me? WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE. And seriously, if you think one movie with an all-female primary cast is a death knell for the genre, you should know that for us women, this is the most refreshing change of scenery we've had in decades, with 85% of top-grossing movies featuring male protagonists. So go ahead: buy an absurdly large pickup truck. Carry boulders up a mountain. Drink 30 beers at once, whatever it takes to piece back together your fragile masculinity, because guess what? This is a thing now. Women make up 51% of the world's population and 52% of the movie-going audience. We contributed a full 50% of the total box office revenue in 2014. And we like stuff other than rom-coms (no disrespect to rom-coms).Deal with it.

Its hard for me to review this film objectively. I'm old enough to have been alive to have a vague recollection of the original murders. I have lived not far from the real house my whole life and the tales have been a part of my life for good and bad for the last thirty years. As an accurate portrait of what supposedly happened in Amityville in the mid 1970's its so far off the mark as to be a joke. I kept a running commentary with myself about how pointless calling the film the Amityville anything was. (Then again aside from the murders everything that happened was probably made up) Still as a horror film I quite liked the movie. In all honesty I'm convinced that had the film not been connected to the Amityville story this would have been a better received film. Its a very creepy little movie that operates nicely in its own monster filled world. If you can divorce yourself from the "real" story I think you'll probably like this film in a B-movie sort of a way.

I absolutely adored the movie especially Dakota's acting as Ana. She portrayed the character very well and gave Anastasia a strong role. Even though she was the submissive, she was actually the one with all the power. Jamie Dornan's acting was also SUPERB. Loved every part of it and can't wait for the next two parts. Although I believe the book was not written very well, I believe the movie is simply amazing. I would recommend everyone to watch it and please don't judge the movie until you've seen it. It's actually very differently portrayed from the book. As I mentioned earlier, while the book portrayed Ana as weak and submissive, the movie shows her stronger and more bolder. P.S. I'm going to watch it again and again and AGAIN till I have memorized each and every word. ;)

Film Review: "The Godfather: Part II" (1974)Every sequence created by director Francis Ford Coppola adapting Michael Corleone's story from Mario Puzo's lavish novel "The Godfather", originally published 1969, analyzes the rise to power of south Italian U.S. immigrated family father, given himself the name Vito Corleone, when entering the United States in 1901 over Ellis Island, New York State.The director builds in 195 minutes editorial with editors Barry Malkin and Richard Marks that premiered in December 1974 to raving reviews. 43 years after, there is hardly any circumstance in the pacing of "The Godfather: Part II" that may give a chance to technically question the execution of the material. All cast members, with leading actor Al Pacino, who gives completely into the dark depths of competition elimination, question terminations, keeping his cool with non-smiling throughout holding all the strings of a family on the edge together to wait for his time to strike, even if the character of Michael Corleone stays in the background of any full frontal interactions with his competitors cross country, including the character of Hyman Roth, performed in double-crossing manner by actor and life-time acting instructor Lee Strasberg (1901-1982), actor Michael V. Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli and Michael Corleone's older disavowed brother Fredo Corleone, given face by actor John Cazele (1935-1978). The actors interfere each other on different locations within lighting transitions from daylight exteriors at Lake Tahoe, Neveda over golden dusk interiors in Miami, Florida to nighttime exterior of revolution-raging Havana, Cuba in season 1958/1959. This color scheme within flawless storyline advancement from scene to scene, shot to shot, not missing any angles to be explored or wished for by cinematographer Gordon Willis (1931-2014), who supports Francis Ford Coppola's directorial vision with high-contrast imagery under occasional camera movement as an dolly tracking sideways, push-ins or pull-outs; yet at no time giving in to hyper-stylized cinematography, dignified serving as instrument of exposure not exploitation.Under constant suspense tension build-up, the picture may work solely under the given main story line of Michael Corleone, surpassing his competition and critics in way of life, with an estimated running time of 135 Minutes, yet Director, Writer and Producer Francis Ford Coppola decides with original novelist Mario Puzo together that in rhythmic frequencies the story of young Vito Corleone had been added with five flashbacks, each ranging between 7 and 17 minutes of screen time, giving actor Robert De Niro the opportunity to show his qualities in taking over a quarter of Little Italy, Manhattan around the 1920s in order to protect the future of his family. The director brings in skillful cross transitions to dissolve from one time zone to the next and back again, leaving at no time the major spine of this classic motion picture of Hollywood's 1970s, where 35-year-old director Francis Ford Coppola established himself with his own production company future American Zoetrope, bringing together experienced talent with music composer Nino Rota (1911-1979), doubling the budget against "The Godfather" (1972) to approximately 13 Million U.S. Dollars with production designer Dean Tavoularis, exposing together with cinematographer Gordon Willis, the lifestyle of the Corleone family in all detail for the audience to indulge on that the "The Godfather: Part II" creates a magically slipstream from the first to last main character close-up of emotional deprivations, letting the spectator feel Michael Corleone's inner struggling of power.In the end, I find an highly entertaining, at time fascinating piece of cinema, which arguably loses relevance in representing the American Dream as raging war machine under the cover of loving and caring, birthday celebrating family, when the most accomplished scene of "The Godfather: Part II" reveals that we have our happiness inside of us at all times and even in times of grief, struggle and further endeavors, the circumstance of embracing life instead of death is a daily choice completed in a full circle picture, which stands alone; apart from Marlon Brando's showtime-owning "Part 1" and the commercialized "Part 3" from 1990.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Warning! Any similarities between "Prince of Egypt" and the Torah is unintentional and purely coincidental. But at least the makers of this film had the good sense to include a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie. With DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" there was not only no disclaimer, but he actually tried to pass it off as an accurate depiction of the biblical account!But just looking at "Prince of Egypt" as just a movie, I rate it better than average.

Steven Spielberg, director of the movie, Amistad, bases this movie off of a real event which was a slave revolt on a Spanish ship named La Amistad. He uses an all black cast to enforce the idea of slavery and other ideas that surround that topic at the time. The story behind this event is that on the ship's route to the United States to trade the slaves or sell them, all the slaves revolted. Led by Cinque, the slaves killed off part of the crew. Although, the ship was still headed to the United States, and once they arrived, they were all brought to court and tried for murder. The U.S government, led by president Martin Van Buren, wants to ship the Africans back to Spain. Two spaniards who own the ship La Amistad, want to claim ownership of the slaves, and the American Ship who found and recovered the crew members and slaves want the slaves as well. Meanwhile two abolitionists, Tappan and Theodore, and are in the middle of it all, and want the slaves to be set free. The case then eventually appears before the Supreme Court, argued by ex president, John Quincy Adams. The movie portrays and gives viewers a good understanding of how this event happened, what led to it, and the results of it. The director sets a mood that fits the historical event, proper setting, and there weren't too many incorrect things or stretches on what actually happened, It was a good story and the director and cast members worked hard, it was a job well done.

Before I got to see T3 last week, I was skeptical. At best, I expected a good summer popcorn cgi-laden sequel blockbuster-"been there-seen that" type of flick. Fun to watch, but that's about it.I was pleasantly surprised. Much better than that overrated horse opera SEABISCUIT, that's for sure.Arnold still has it. Even at age 55, he is still Terminator material. (Whether he's Governor material still remains to be seen, but he can't possibly be any worse than Gray Davis). Anyway, Arnold, as a Model-T 101 is sent back to the present era to do battle with the latest model, the TX, or Terminex,(Kristanna Loken). Far more advanced and deadlier than the previous cyborg assassains, Terminex has been programed not only to take out John Conner, but his future wife Kate Brewster (Claire Daines)as well. What follows is the kind of mayhem not previously seen in TERMINATOR 1 or JUDGEMENT DAY. The two cyborgs manage to wipe out two city blocks with a giant tow truck, and later do battle in a men's washroom smashing each other with toilets and urinals (somehow, it's not as ludicrous as it sounds). The ending itself was very well done-or not so well done, depending upon your perspective-either way, it leaves room for the possibility of a TERMINATOR 4, that is, if Arnold loses the election. Stay tuned.Rating: *****out of *****

Another story about a serial killer tries to separate itself from other movies by being the most uncomfortable movie to watch if you own a scrotum. This whole movie can be summed up with two words: "Torture porn."...A revenge oriented vigilante teenager who's also a sociopath is the closest thing to a heroin this movie has, so it's really hard to feel any sort of connection with her, or share the conviction she has for inflicting justice by "convincing" her victims to commit suicide (which is the entire plot). The story is so focused on the fact that there is a paedophile on the slab that it forgets to have a point, perhaps other than to provide some angst-full teenagers a much needed hate outlet for things that just aren't fair. That's the demographic this movie will rely on to rationalize and imagine a point and morale that simply just isn't there. My theory, based on looking at the past and present works created by the writer, is that this movie was his desperate attempt to finally cross-over from T.V to movie.

Just saw it last week and was really powerful and a masterpiece as Schindler's List. The story is haunting and makes you feel you are in that time period. I really want this win Best Picture for the 86th Academy Awards and also win for Best Director Steve McQueen and have him become the first black director to win Best Director. Why? The acting from the main character is amazing, as well as Michael Fassbender who plays a crazy religious drunk slave owner and is become one of the best actors of the 21st century. The direction by Steve McQueen is gold and the best I have seen since Steven Spilberge for Saving Pravite Ryan and again Schindler's List and Tom Hooper for The King's Speech. The other stuff that I like was the music score by Hans Zimmer while although it feels the same as he did Inception, it is haunting and powerful as his scores to The Thin Red Line and Galdiator. The script by Undercover Brother's John Ridley which is pure gold and some of the art and costumes as well. If you are looking for a good movie that goes with Schindler's List and Grave of the Firefiles. This is a masterpiece to go see and put in that collection.

Actually, I liked this movie. I think I would have liked it even without the 3D effects that are peppered throughout this movie. It tells a good story and sets up the plot for an energetic finale where the movie really earns its price of admission. I did find Beowulf a bit over-the-top bombastic at times (hence my summary line), but this eventually gave way as his character evolved and I was able to write that off simply as character development. That annoyance aside, I should mention something about the CGI, which was marvelous. Note that The ENTIRE movie is CGI...there are no live actors present, although the CGI characters look like their real-life counterparts in places (i.e. Anthony Hopkins' character looks like Anthony Hopkins). I found this funny since I usually associate CGI with creating brand-new fantasy characters (Grendel? Also played by an actor but nothing you can recognize), not with attempting to model actual actors. I'm not sure if I really like that aspect of the CGI...if I wanted to see Angelina Jolie somehow I expect the real thing. But that's just IMHO, and it really doesn't take away from an otherwise good movie....

lets start with something positive...the dialog was kinda good.now to the rest of the Cr@p, the movie was shallow sugar coated Sh1t. Same Scenarios! he even gets injured mid-play and healed by his coach, coach gets depressed because of dead family member, endless repeating of simple chores (mysteriously converted into Kungfu moves). they copied everything then modernized it. ending was the worst part the boy supposedly was injured in his leg, then made a 360 back flip, all that to avoid the original move of the pelican, this is just an example of many in the movie. proving that the movie industry would go just about anywhere to make easy money, even if it is irrational unrealistic, nonexistent, illogical and even unnatural, that movie was pathetic, they even froze the last frame like the good old days, and just when i thought the movie cannot get any worse, BAM a Justin Berber song, so thank God i watched that Cr@p online, i took precautions and i am fully relieved that i have took them. that is all i can recollect for now, i am sure there's lots of pieces of Sh1t crumbs dripping from my memory, but it was just too much gather in one mind.

I've just read an interesting book titled Brave Dames and Wimpettes, in which novelist Susan Isaacs posits that most modern movie heroines still use old feminine wiles instead of brainpower to get what they want.Urgently recommended viewing for Ms. Isaacs would be Panic Room, one of the best thrillers I've seen in years.The movie's heroines are Meg Altman (Jodie Foster), a recent divorcee, and her young daughter Sarah (Kristen Stewart). They've just moved into a three-story Manhattan home of the kind to be found more easily in movies than in Manhattan. The prime draw of this house is its "panic room." In the event of a burglary or similar emergency, the resident locks himself inside this room and uses its separate phone line to call the police.On their very first night in the house, Meg and Sarah find out just how good to be true this room is, when three unruly burglars break in. It happens that the house's previous owner left a few million dollars behind in the house, and wouldn't you know it, the money's in the same panic room where Meg and Sarah lock themselves. Oh, and for good measure, Meg didn't have a chance to get the separate phone line hooked up.Yeah, I know, this whole set-up could happen only in the movies. But before the thrills are unleashed, the movie takes the time to set up the relationship between Meg and Sarah, and it's nicely done. Because we get to know them for a while, we have a stake in their peril.And believe me, these are not two women who sit around screaming and waiting for some moronically written boogie-men to kill them. Simply because the marvelous screenplay by David Koepp (Jurassic Park) allows these women to think, they manage to stay one step ahead of the burglars, who eventually find themselves cowering as much as those wimpettes Isaacs writes about. You'll not have heard such cheering from a movie audience in quite a while.Except for some overly swooping camera movement at the beginning, direction by David Fincher--formerly known for such existential dreariness as Fight Club and The Game--is as perfectly taut as you could hope to find in a thriller.As for the lead actresses--what a wealth! According to The Internet Movie Database, Kristen Stewart is only *11 years old*. But with her interplay with Foster and her remarkable subtlety, she can only be described as...well, the next Jodie Foster.And what is there to say about Foster? I find her one of the most beautiful women in movies, simply because she makes intelligence sexy.Going to a seeming no-brainer like Panic Room is like expecting an ice-cream cone and getting a dinner at Four Seasons.Panic Room is rated R for much adult language,

A masterpiece that fits the life of a true hero that Alan Turing was. Remarkable performance by Benedict Cumberbatch which should have been crowned with an Oscar, in my opinion. But for me the best thing about the movie is the the score by Alexandre Desplat. Moving, beautiful and just perfectly sending shivers down your spine in every moment of the film, without being intrusive. Never bought an OST before but after i saw The Imitation Game, i did. Just watch this moving Drama/Biography and sink into it, with the great tunes of Alexandre Desplat. The only thing why i gave 9/10 points and not 10/10 is Keira Knightly. She played the role good, but in my opinion not good enough or let's say not as memorable as Benedict Cumberbatch did. So a bit overrated for me. But all in all a must-see in every aspect.

I like "HellBoy" a lot. I still kick myself for missing it on the big screen. For a special effects-heavy monster/sci-fi/fantasy movie, it had tons of warmth, humanity and heart. This was what I was expecting from "HellBoy 2: The Golden Army". Didn't get much warmth, and very little humanity. Sure, some could argue that a movie about demons and goblins and elves wouldn't HAVE any humanity. But it can have heart. This sequel simply falls short in what makes the first one so endearing. It certainly was photographed beautifully, and yes, the effects were wowie-wow-wow impressive. But what movie since "Jurassic Park" doesn't boast uber-realistic, "in your face" sound and visual effects?With all that said, here's why it sucked: It didn't have David Hyde-Pierce as the voice of Abe Sapien, Jeffrey Tambor's character was unnecessarily weaker than in the first movie, the character voiced by Seth McFarlan was annoying as all get out, and the switch from humanity's "Yay, good monsters are saving us from bad monsters" to "Booo, the good monsters are bad too" sentiment was way too abrupt.Why it didn't suck: It had Selma Blair.Hopefully if Guillermo del Toro does another "HellBoy" movie, he'll avoid the gratuitous overload of "Pan's Labyrinth" and "HellBoy 2", and get back the same kindheartedness of the first "HellBoy".

So I haven't ever watched a Daniel Craig james Bond movie before. When I walked into see this, I was like probably a half hour late.Every time hes ever on television, like TNT or SY FY, its not the same, and the mood is so boring that Ide rather be asleep anyway. So I get into the theatre, and like some people were saying, dumb. Daniel Craig got with some chick in a hotel room that was certain that she was going to get killed and even with him there, it would only be temporary like she said: maybe shede stay alive a day or two more....and though I lost track of that storyline....somehow he ends up in a place where he tells the doorman hes Mickey Mouse and bad stuff happens there...kind of like a government Parliament meeting or something. But then some gapped tooth woman dressed up like a geisha becomes the next woman involved in this storyline, and James has to teach her and give her a gun. that about sums up the fun...and though its not a two, I'll go with most other reviewres opinion and rate it a seven

This is a fun and amusing movie. It has some gore in it but that doesn't damage the overall light feeling this movie gives.It portrays the inhuman characters in a very human way, a thing that many other movies and series tried but failed, you can't but to sympathize with them as they address the daily issues many of us experiencing without being vampires: new roommates, finding your place, dealing with changes.It really gives a different feeling than all the modern Hollywood films which are focusing on action and drama. I enjoyed watching it.

This was a wonderful film. It was beautifully shot and had great acting performances! Daniel Day-Lewis is one of Hollywood's most under rated actors. The scenes with the cannons firing on the fort were breathtaking! The only problem I had was when that one girl jumped off the cliff. I didn't like that!

I had the honor of seeing this movie in April at the very first public screening in Orange, CA, with Jonah Hill sitting in my row! This movie is absolutely amazing. I am a huge fan of the first movie, and I was nervous about this movie because I was hoping it would be just as good as the first one, and luckily it was! Channing and Jonah's chemistry is perfect and they are so hilarious together as always. Also, Ice Cube's character had a lot of growth in this movie and I really loved all of his scenes. All of the action sequences were very well filmed and highly entertaining. I especially loved how they emphasize Channing and Jonah's "bromance" throughout the movie. Especially with the therapist, I couldn't stop laughing. I also appreciate this movie because I'm a college student and I connect a lot with the characters in this movie. 21 Jump Street came out when I was in high school, which was awesome, and now 22 Jump Street came out while I was in college. It's awesome to sort of grow up with these movies and feel connected to these characters. Overall, it's just as good as the first one, if not better. I highly recommend going to see it. Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, and Ice Cube did an amazing job!

I've seen much worse. It would have been an OK TV movie. I've read the book but it's been so many years, the movie's departures didn't phase me. The effects were as stunning as we've grown to expect from sci-fi lately. Travolta was as gleefully evil as the novel had his character. Everything was up to par as far as the movie was concerned.But maybe that's the problem.We've seen evil before so no big deal. We've seen fighters vs. alien ships before, no big deal. We've seen the planet devastated and the cities in ruin before. Same old, same old.The movie's flaws were the same as the book: One thousand years would cause more damage to the earth than was shown. Rubber degrades in just a few years, fuel evaporates, batteries would no longer even be able to hold a charge. Even nuclear warheads have a shelf life much less than a millennium.Also there's a problem of language. When isolated, language changes. Right here in America, we have several different dialects after a few hundred years and we're in constant contact with each other. After a thousand years no one would still speak english well enough to read the Declaration of Independence yet Johnny can talk to every human he meets.I'll never understand how anyone can see a 1050 page novel and believe they can tell the story in a movie. They would have been better to have made a TV mini-series. But the movie as a movie, wait for it to come out on video.

Few actors acting nicely in this movie, but most of them don't. The plot is so so, and the viewer is watching with some tension the movie until the last scene where everything will be showed. But the outcome of that is not enough to carry the movie to a point where I can say "wow", in fact the plot outcome makes this movie a good American Teen Age movie but no more then that.

Anyone that goes to see this movie must realize that they aren't going to witness an amazing cinematic feat. This isn't a work of art, but more a movie that is fun to watch and talk about after. Throughout the movie my heart was pounding and no one dared look away from the screen or they might miss something. An eight out of ten rating may be a little bit high, but I had fun watching this movie and it was a great movie to see with your entire family. There was no cursing or awkward scenes. This was simply an action packed movie with a better plot than I thought it would have. I would definitely recommend people go see this movie, just for the sake of having fun at the movies, even if it isn't an epic drama. There are those scenes where Tom Cruise almost gets killed, but he is still able to take out all the bad guys and escape. So what if it isn't realistic. I loved it. Just remember, don't expect great acting or a great screenplay. Just have fun.

I can tell you one thing: I remember when i heard about this movie, but what i remember the most is the weeks and months i was waiting for this movie. Quentin Tarantino, one of my favorite directors, was about to release a new movie. I had higher hopes for this one than i had for kill bill, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir dogs (obviously), and so on. I don't know why exactly, it just seemed right. And let me tell you, this movie delivers! The snappy Tarantino-dialogs, the characters attitudes, and the environment in the movie was superb. But, as in always every movie you watch, it tends to be a little slow, but in this case it don't matter. Prepare for and adrenaline-rush!

Let's be honest, so far this summer movie season has sucked eggs. Though I throughly enjoyed Spiderman 3, I admit it was a bit overdone and I know a ton of people who hated Spidey's third outing. Pirates 3 was pretty good, but it was too long. The Fantastic Four 2 sucked out loud and every other big summer popcorn movie hasn't delivered what it promised, except Die Hard 4. I was and still am annoyed by the PG-13 Rating, and for weeks before the film opened I was calling it Die Kind Sorta Hard, but the film surprised me. The film I was sure would be a flaming turd turned out to be a fun, diverting, surprisingly clever 2 hours of pure joygasm style entertainment. There is no doubt the movie is flawed, the villain is a wimp, the plot is outlandish but slightly plausible, and there are massive plot holes, but the film still delivers. I have no doubt that if there had been any other character in this film but John McClane, we'd all be tearing this flick a new piehole, but we aren't because the character of John McClane is a winner and he saves this movie from mediocrity. I have no doubt without McClane this movie would be a 5 out of 10, but Willis and his alter ego elevate this material above standard and turn it into something sadly missing this summer pure entertainment. The movie is not a classic like the first one (the best action film of all time), in fact Die Hard 4 is the worst one of the series, and the fact I am still giving it an eight shows how strong this series truly has been. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank John McClane for once again entertaining the hell out of me, and heres hoping we see him again soon.

I, apparently along with millions of other viewers, thought that the first Matrix movie was interesting and stimulating enough to cover the flaws. The acting was pretty good, the concept, while not exactly new, was presenting in a refreshing manner, and the special effects and camera work were excellent. This was in 1999. In the four years that separated the first movie from the other two, nothing appears to have changed in the Wachowski universe. The final two movies are so much alike that they can be viewed as one long, progressively depressing film. Depressing because it becomes apparent that none of the really interesting questions will be answered. I can handle an open-ended film, provided that the questions asked are interesting enough to make me think about the movie afterward and ponder the possibilities. The Matrix 2 + 3 do not succeed in this capacity, in my opinion. Rather than deal with the interesting questions regarding the fate of a messiah in a machine-dominated world, we introduce new characters, have CGI-heavy fight sequences for no apparent plot-related reason, and generally p*** off everyone who isn't a die-hard fan. My advice to everyone I meet who hasn't seen the last (two) movie(s) is this: skip it. Your imagination will provide a MUCH more satisfying ending than the Wachowski brothers have managed. It is a sad statement that of the three possibly great trilogies running concurrently (Matrix, Star Wars and LOTR), only the Lord of the Rings did not drop the ball. I'm not interested in starting a fight between Matrix fanboys and RingNuts, and I'm aware that the final installment of the Star Wars prequel trilogy hasn't been produced yet, however it's probably safe to assume that it will suck as badly as the Matrix final installment, which is saying quite a bit. Shame on the Wachowskis for becoming infatuated with special effects and shying away from cleaning up the mess they created.

After hearing so much about this movie I just had to see it, to find out what people were talking about. So i rented it and... well... Saw it..Maybe my hopes were to high, or maybe this movie just didn't cut it - I tend to think it was the latter.In my opinion this movie tries to hard to cover to many genres at once. Thriller, horror and "weird-movies". And I really do think it tries to hard to be weird and mystic.When a movie ends, I like to be left in the dark about things, maybe even confused. But this movie tried to hard to put me off in the search for the "bad guy" - and failed miserably.Don't get me wrong, this wasn't that bad a movie - it just didn't live up to my expectations. And in my opinion, if you've already seen movies like, Donnie Darko, Seven, Fear and loathing in Las Vegas, Memento, The Ring etc. - you don't need to see this movie - 'cause you've pretty much covered all that you'll see in this movie.But hey, watch it anyway, maybe you'll love it - I think this just might be one of those movies where you either love it, or think it stinks. ;o)

If you have been in an intense relationship with the highs and lows so accentuated that sanity walked to the grave, this movie will take you back there.The movie questions the cliché all of us live or wait to live, sooner or later with the love of our lives.To make it even better, the performances are excellent. There are some great scenes of supreme acting talents and the direction has successfully maintained the tense aura where two people are unhappy around each other but cannot let go. The movie walks you through the minds of such a couple and we all exactly know the commonality of this situation.A must watch for the deep thinkers out there. Will leave you questioning a lot about bitter truths and dreams.

KOH is not Gladiator 2, first of all the movie is not about a slave dealing with Romans, at the heart of the movie is the battle for Jerusalem and two sides the Christians and the Muslims. KOH in my opinion raises up more issues than what Gladiator did and then some.The acting was great, Neeson as Godfrey of Ibelin , though he has a small role , leaves quite an impact. Bloom is wonderful, Eva Green is hot, Jeremy Irons is at his usual best , David Thewlis also puts up a great performance as Hospitaller, and Edward Norton turns in a memorable performance.The story is that in 1184 during the time of the Crusades , Balian a blacksmith becomes a knight to defend Jerusalem from Muslim invaders.Bloom as the protagonist who doesn't believe in God or religion, "I am just a blacksmith", undergoes a spiritual journey that tests both his values as a man (do I stay here and fight for people of Jerusalem) and his ideals about religion. He also has his morality come into question through almost the entire movie, does his give into temptation and join the dissenters of the church (Guy De Lusignan) or does he kill and lie to get what is offered a seat of the throne.The directing is brilliant, I believe this is shot on location if not, the sets, the special effects and budget really show. Ridley Scott as the veteran has a great eye for setting up locales, key battle scenes and incredible emotional characters.Balian's character is also 100% vulnerable he takes his series of hard shots and hangs on to claim victory just when you think the numbers are against the guy he finds a way to outsmart his opponents.Back to story. Balian kills a priest who mocks his late wife who committed suicide. "she is in hell because she committed suicide" and so Balian out of rage and the contempt this guy has for him kills him. He is now a fugitive. When he learns Godfrey of Ibelin is his father, , Godfrey wants him to fight in the crusades and go to Jerusalem.Balian still in shock doesn't want to go with his dad. When the authorities come to claim Balian and execute him, there is a big battle which results in some of Godfrey's nights being killed. Balian seeing the sacrifice the knights have done for him, finally does go with his father.Balian gets christened as a knight, but doesn't believe in God, is not an atheist per say, he believes in death but he doesn't believe in the greater good.This is a key issue being brought up throughout the movie, what is religion? Is it just words or actions that we live by. Does God really offer us hope and salvation, and the answer is yes.When his dad dies and through the speeches with Hospitaller (David Thewlis) who talks about him about religion that Balian he starts to have a spiritual awakening of sorts. Exposed to the poor people of Jerusalem , Balian uses his new power as a lord and a knight to build up shelters and provide water for the people as he says which I am paraphrasing he is trying to be a good man and trying to aid the helpless.Hospitaller: "Religion is not made up by fanatics.. it's about your rite of actions" He makes the analogy that religion really is about who you are as a person and by what you do , not by what you preach as a so called Christian.Eva Green is Sybilla the future queen of Jerusalem whose brother King Baldiwn (Norton) is sick and near death. Sybilla likes Balian of Ibelin (Bloom) because she feels he is brave and good. She hates her husband Guy who is one of the knights for King of Jerusalem. She mentions she was forced to marry him in a prearranged deal so there's an internal conflict with Guy and Balian. Guy and Balian previously meet early on when Godfrey introduces him to Lord Tiberius (Jeremy Irons) and Hospitaller. Sybilla also undergoes a transformation in the film as well, when the King dies, she sees in Balian leadership that is absent in her husband.Balian visits places in Jerusalem like the place of Christ's crucifixion and gathers within himself spiritual strength and a sense of direction to the turbulence around him.The Muslim characters in the movie consists of Saladin (Ghassan Massoud)and , Muslim Grandee (Nasser Memazia who want Jerusalem for other uses such as for the nation of Islam. I should say the Muslim characters in this film get a large bulk of screen time. Furthermore, their characters are treated with respect and almost admiration. In fact Scott tells us their back story as well and we see display of Muslim religion in the movie such as Muslim praying in mosques and in the city of Jerusalem.This reminds me of the Palestian/Israeli conflict of sorts where you have both sides that believe in God but are battling for the control of one city, despite the fact that they both profess to believing in God. Some questions to ponder are these other people with religious ideals worse than we say they are, or are they merely some religious fanatics misusing the name of God for power? Couple that the moral questions that almost every character goes through and the questioning and denouncement and spiritual awakening of God and my you got yourself a thought provoking film.KOH is a great film. Not only is it full of action and great characters and wonderful acting but it also has a good story and challenges you as an audience to think about the messages in the movie long after you've left the theater!!!

Definitely this movie contains a completely unique idea. Five people trapped in an elevator, and one of them is the devil. We don't get to see that every day.I thought the movie would be quite boring to watch, seeing from the summary that the only place the action takes place is a tiny elevator. Well, it was better than I had expected it to be. We get to see at least one event every five minutes that keeps our attention (which is how it should be, as the movie is simply too short).The movie forces us to think in a way as we would watching a detective movie. Practically throughout the whole movie we try to guess who is the culprit of all evil in the elevator. The movie obviously ends completely contrary to our conclusions.The one thing that bothered me (and obviously several other critics) is the length of the ending. I was expecting to see some more action in those last few minutes.If there will by any chance (but I doubt it) be a sequel to this movie, I will certainly watch it.

This was a good (if not too long) thriller that should have been so much better. I refer to the ending so if you don't want to know come off now.Hugh Jackman's character is seen as a tough guy who can certainly handle himself,that is until he comes up against a little old lady in her kitchen. He then acts totally out of character and does exactly what she asks even though it is obvious that she is not going to let him live, and he won't rescue his daughter. In the kitchen he could have easily over powered her, OK she had a gun but so did he in his bag. Or when she gave him the drink to weaken him, what does he do? He drinks it rather than through it in her face.Then the most stupid part. He gets into a car and reverses slowly as she asks him to, rather than reversing quickly to knock her over or oat least off her feet. And then he jumps down a hole so she can lock him in with the car over it.Sorry but none of this makes sense and it spoilt an otherwise good film.I also thought that Jake Gyllenhaal was a poor choice for his role as a cop, he was clearly unhinged and hindered the investigation, (then maybe cops are like that?). Terence Howard's character was the only one I believed out of all the parents and Paul Dano plays his part well as the mentally backward son of the nutty woman. I also thought that the film had too much unnecessary bad language, (Then I always find that people swear and curse more in movies than I ever find in real life(, But I put up with it as the story was gripping until the end.It is a real shame that this film ended the way it did. The silly ending with the whistle noise was so predictable as to almost turn this into a comedy.

There is nothing best than the TOY STORY 3 in the animated series I have ever seen. I am totally impressed with the extremely nice story line that toy story is following for them. The characters and the music is just so perfect. This is the first movie for me in the animation series that gave me full adventure, fun, and made my eyes wet at the end. I give full 10 marks for the movie. Its one of the best movie that I have come across. Disney guys, hats off, you proved yourselves once again.Love you, Woody, Buzz, Eye in the sky monkey, bulls eye, mr. n mrs. potato, slinky, Rex and every character in the movie. Keep the good work. Full impressed.

A great film of courage and bravery that pits US soldiers against an enemy that goes to great lengths to destroy them..This is a film of an actual event and it gives the film a mark of authenticity..Plenty of action and realistic scenes that keep you on the edge of your seat..This is a film not for everybody but a film to be remembered..

I love animation. I like almost all computer animated movies I see. (Some of the low budget ones are a drag, though)But Frozen is not low budget. It has sky high production values. But still, I was really, really disappointed by it. Which I hate. I hate being disappointed by movies. I love movies, and I want to like them all!Frozen is, well, it's just not that good. No one thing in particular can be pointed out. They have two of everything basically, maybe that's what makes it a little strange. I don't know.Parts of the plot make absolutely no sense at all, this is not something I'm normally bothered by, but here I was.I can not understand why everyone is so crazy about this movie. There are so many really good animation movies, this is sadly not one of them. It does not excel at anything. And a couple of the songs are horrible. Oh my god. We have many great animated movies, from the classics like Toy Story, to the newer ones like Cloudy.. Brave, and so one. Watch those instead.

We have another film recognizing the atrocities committed in the African continent during the dark ages of violence and war which has followed the collapse of colonial rule. The massacres, ethnic cleansing and general upheaval, not to mention the general breakdown of law and order which have taken place in Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo Republic, Rhodesia and Dafur, just to name a few, are only now becoming exposed via the medium of film. This film is a must see along with Hotel Rwanda and The Last King of Scotland.The savage conflict in Sierra Leone, once part of Britain's West African colonial empire, with its forcible recruitment of child soldiers and killing and maiming of tens of thousands by lawless gangs of self appointed rebels and freedom fighters was reported at the time, but largely ignored by the rest of the world until several years had passed and it was safe to make a film about it. As they said in the film, TIA - this is Africa! Wrong - this is the chaos that follows when a superpower's imposed rule ends leaving behind a power vacuum. The most interesting parallel in the film was that of the child soldier Dia, and Danny Archer, himself a child soldier, albeit a white one. Danny's parents had been murdered in the struggle in Zimbabwe, after white colonial rule had ended with a unilateral declaration of independence. Danny joined the army in South Africa and served in Angola, where he became a trained killer under the guidance of Colonel Coetze, just as Dia comes under the guidance of Colonel Poison. Neither Coetze nor Poison care about their young proteges, except for tuning them into emotionless killing machines. Coetze is now involved in diamond smuggling, and Danny is one of his field contacts.Danny courts Solomon, who discovered and concealed a valuable diamond, because he wants to find and make money from the diamond. Solomon's search for his son is an distraction that he does not have time for. He meets the reporter, Maddy, and his reaction is that of a droplet of water in a hot frying pan, but eventually his eyes are opened and he comes to see how they are all being used by the diamond cartel, who do not even sell the diamonds which have destroyed so many lives, but lock them away in a vault to manipulate the price. The film also makes the point that we all contribute to the violence and slave labor when we buy the product.The ending of the film offers hope for Solomon and Dia, but none for Danny who has not known anything but war and probably could never settle down to a quiet life.

Back when the stage show Mamma Mia first arrived, I refused to see it largely because it sounded inane to me. A year later still going strong on Broadway, I knuckled under and was stunned at how much joyful fun that it turned out to be. The energy between the performers and the audience and the show's unflinchingly sunny demeanor were infectious. Unfortunately, these are elements that are incredibly difficult to translate to the screen, as proved by the film adaptation of the same show.The slight storyline is a transparent reworking of Buena Sera, Mrs. Campbell. Set on an exotic Greek island, Meryl Streep finds her world turned upside-down when wedding preparations for her daughter Amanda Seyfried to Dominic Cooper are interrupted by the arrival of three men from her past, one of whom unknowingly is the father of the bride. The storyline only has to be good enough to hang a wide diversity of ABBA songs on – and for the most part it is. However, the film takes some liberties from the play that simply do not work on screen.The lion's share of the muted effect of this film, cannot be laid at the feet of the cast or the screenplay, but on the direction. Director Phyllida Lloyd does not seem to know how to film production numbers for maximum impact or stages them in such a completely inappropriate way as to diminish them. As a result, numbers that worked incredibly well on stage are re-staged here amateurishly. Several times, Lloyd actually interrupts numbers that have real potential to cut away to dialog scenes and then never returns to the music. This happens several times. Other numbers are clumsily rendered to try to get a laugh which takes the winds out of the sails of the performers. Julie Walters' version of Take a Chance of Me is constantly upstaged by crummy attempts at physical comedy which prevent the actress from really belting it out of the park, which anyone who has heard her on the soundtrack knows she could do. Similarly, Does Your Mother Know was a show-stopper on stage and would seem a perfect fit for Christine Baranski, but the filming and choreography of the number in the film comes across like ball bearings in a garbage disposal, leaving the viewer to wonder at its end, "Is that it?" This is not to suggest that the film does not have its moments or some charm. Streep is surprisingly appealing and amusing despite a pleasant, but limited vocal range. Walters and Baranski are amusing as her friends, although they are never given the opportunities of their stage counterparts to really showcase their vocal and comic chops. One respects the efforts of the film to beef up the male roles to some extent, but this has limited success. Stellan Skarsgaard is fine, but the comedic aspects appear to have been drained from what was a very funny role on the stage. I like Pierce Brosnan in most everything, but when he opens his mouth to sing, some unholy combination of Joe Cocker and Winston Churchill bursts forth that makes one want to drive spikes into their ears. The relief that they have spared us his mutilating Knowing Me, Knowing You, is short-lived when we then must endure a tortuous new addition for him at the end. Of the three male leads, Colin Firth comes across as the most charming and appealing and reveals a sweet singing voice. I do have a problem with the film's treatment of his character, though. In the play, it is not unexpectedly revealed that Harry is gay and has a long-time partner back in England. Here, while I have no problem with the film pairing Harry up with a hot younger guy in Greece to keep him close to his newfound "family", the ludicrous build-up that heretofore this guy in his late 40s had "no idea" that he was gay until exchanging some barely noticeable glances with a male bartender feeds into a lot of misguided myths about homosexuality being a choice. Seyfried is a revelation as the daughter and she is nicely matched by the hot, underused Cooper as her paramour – who sadly does his one production number in bathing trunks and not a form-fitting Speedo like his stage counterpart.In the end, the film is pleasant, easy on the eyes, and a relatively painless 90 minutes, but never comes close to capturing the lightning-in-a-bottle, unapologetically cheesy charisma of the mega-hit Broadway show.

i really like this movies. a must see movie when they are training you have no idea, they are actually training for the real deal.and then in the end you are wondering is this real or not. i wonder how do you invent a movie like this. hmm this may be even one of the best movies i've ever seen.

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi is simply put a success, and the perfect ending to the greatest trilogy of all time. People complain constantly about how ewoks are a simple marketing campaign, but they are a needed value in this equations masterpiece. Yoda, was a tiny green creature who upon first glance, was nothing but. Yet upon greater inspection, he was the Grand Master of the Jedi. It's the little things that matter, and can overall make a difference. And return of the Jedi shows us this, with its inclusion. Making the presence of ewoks, not so much a scheme, but more essential than anything. And without homage to Yoda and this lesson, it would have been a lesson without anything learned. Without this contrast of something lighter, the movie is grueling with darkness. Luke heads to defeat his Father, and his Fathers master,on a suicide mission. Where he knows might be his final stand. We have the Emperor, a man consumed in evil, who is stopped by his agent of evil, Darth Vader. Showing the audience a great darkness taken down, with both the emperor dead, and the switch to light for Darth Vader.In the end, It sums up the monumental trilogy, and creates a great movie while doing so!

I almost turned it off so many times, but I kept thinking to myself that something had to happen. Nothing happened. Many regrets.That acting was great. They did a great job. Especially considering that they had no story to work with and nothing happened.If you want to get bored for two hours, go outside and watch kids play on the streets. That would be more entertaining.If you're going to make a movie about a superhero or someone with super powers, at least make it interesting. If you're going to make a snooze-fest, then don't call it something cool like Birdman insinuating he's gonna fight some bad guys or something fun is going to happen because it didn't.

Scream is a rare film, its funny, scarey and unpredictable. The whole cast is excellent, with the exception of Neve Campbell. Wes Craven has outdone himself. The first ten minutes of the film are classic. Courtney Cox is great as the bitch Gale Weathers and David Arquette is also good at the goofy Duwey.

"Amores Perros" is a great movie, it has been nominated for Best Movie in Foreign Language on the Academy Awards 2001. It's a real movie, with real characters and situations, Guillermo Arriaga, the screenplay writer, guides us to a rollercoaster of emotions, such as: love, hate, desperation, etc. Alejandro González Iñárritu brought us an excellent movie, full of love and pain. And also, with an excellent soundtrack, featuring: Café Tacuba, Moenia, Julieta Venegas, Control Machete, Nacha Pop, Bersuit, Zurdok, etc.

I will probably only write reviews about movies i really like and movies i hate.This movie is one i really like. Even more i was just planning to watch it again for the 7th time or so. The last time that happened was whit Terminator 2 when i was 16 years old.The best thing about this movie is that even when you clearly see the monsters you just keep asking yourself, What the hell is going on? And so do the characters in the movie. It all starts whit a storm followed by a very strange unnatural looking mist followed by an Earthquake. Just before the Earthquake someone comes running in bleeding and screaming: "there's something in the mist!".So they all lock themselves up in the supermarket and have no clue what happened or what to do next.At first they start fighting over the fact that some talk about monsters and others say its bullshit but thats just the beginning.Its when they all saw and met some monsters that the movie becomes really interesting. The people in the store get divided and become violent on each other while others are trying to find way's to get out of there to see if they can find help or get out of that mist. But in order to do that they have to get past the other humans first.They also start arming themselves in several ways, one has a gun, knives and others use brooms whit benzine but those weapons sometimes turn on themselves as the movie continues.When the movie reaches its final stages the atmosphere turns in complete hopelessness, like all is lost and there's no hope left for any of them. That feeling keeps on building up to the very end witch shall leave you whit a feeling i can't really describe.The end is just brilliant, its so breathtaking that you won't say a word while the credits roll over the screen whit the great but sad music which will make you feel very sad and empty inside.And i tell you, you will think back to that ending and you probably will want to see the movie again.

Stephen Daldry hit the nail on the head for his interpretation of the novel. His choice of location, cinematography and casting were spot on, which enabled him to deliver a well depicted version of the novel.Kate Winslet and David Kross were the backbone of the film, as they portrayed Michael Berg and Hanna Schmitz, respectively, as they were written in the novel. Ultimately, their chemistry and interplay was particularly electrifying and makes the audience really feel for their characters. Surprisingly, Ralph Fiennes portrayal of the older Michael Berg was a major let down, as he did a poor job in emphasising the pain and suffering that the character goes through.The court scene is another disappointment. Although it is depicted as written in the novel, the scene would have been strengthened if the film makers had shown flash backs of the events surrounding the Holocaust, which was the major event of this film.The film is worth watching, but it is no masterpiece.

Director Denis Villeneuve and screenwriter Hampton Fancher (in collaboration with Michael Green) get things off to a great start by dusting down an omitted scene originally intended for the 80's classic. Ryan Gosling's Blade Runner, Officer K (Dick?), discovers a long buried secret whilst on a 'retirement' mission outside the walls of future LA. This sets the wheels in motion for a gripping, highly intriguing 2 hours 63 minutes of hallucinogenic dystopian wet dreams, as Gosling hunts for the hunter - Rick Deckard, who has been missing for 30 years...So, how far have we come between 2019 and 2049? Well, the mash-up of all things vintage and cyber-punk have been aggressively separated out, finding the former unceremoniously tossed over the city wall to wilt and die in the misty post apocalyptic wilderness. The latter's underclass are forced into the Soylent Green over-crowding of Gosling's dead-end high-rise habit, leaving the overlords to bask in their sleek minimalist creature comforts behind closed doors.The rich/poor divide is breathtakingly realised courtesy of perfectly nuanced art direction (think Gattaca meets Brazil) and Roger Deakins' achingly beautiful DP work. The lighting, design and colour schemes deployed in the perfectly timed build-up to Officer K's face-to-face with you-know-who, has to rate amongst one of the best directed sequences I've ever seen. It's almost like watching the greatest moment Kubrick never made.Benjamin Wallfisch & Hans Zimmer's hammering Vangelis on steroids soundtrack feels less like music and more the organic hyperventilating of the gloomy Metropolis it supports. In fact – and I do mean this as a compliment - it's sometimes difficult to tell where (outstanding) sound design ends and music score begins (and vice versa).OK, that's the gravy. But what really make this outing so enduring are Villeneuve & the writers' commitment to telling a story with characters and themes that are well worth your time. The ideas and threads presented in Ridley Scott's masterpiece and PKD's original source material are built upon quite substantially, juggling elemental symbolism (snow, rain & seawater equating life, death & rebirth) with the big existential questions of what it means to be human and the tragic disconnect that intervenes.Whether it be by design, social-standing, physical-handicap or grim circumstance, every single character here - Gosling's perfectly muted, curiously Roy Batty attired, drone law-enforcer, Ana De Armis' sweet & tragic hologram Joi, Robin Wright's gutsy police chief Joshi, Harrison Ford's meaty, bladey, big & besty Deckard etc – is a slave. Like the original, no one here is in control - not even boo-hiss villains Wallace and his tearful hit-woman, Luv (played superbly by Jared Leto & Sylvia Hoeks respectively). Like everyone else, they too are manipulated by the puppet master society that has been allowed to grow around them, a dark warning from the future if ever there was one.Any negatives? Whilst I honestly can't think of a single scene that shouldn't be there, some moments could do with a trim as Leto's scenes do tend to ramble on a bit. The action too, whilst still sparing, adheres more to the crowd-pleasing variety this time round, with the finale going a tad too good-guy vs bad guy/damsel-in- distress for comfort. That said the fantastically skilled Villeneuve's work behind the camera insures it always remains as credible as anything else he's ever done involving punch-ups and explosions.The pace, like the original, is sedate and deliberate, the mood, a mix of oppressive brooding and melancholic bewilderment. Several passages enticingly emit the same kind of foreboding and dread normally found in the best horror movies, and the outcome retains the same downbeat ambiguity as before. The final moment, is perfect.Was this sequel necessary? I thought it would be nay, but I'm happy to say it's a yay! This Blade Runner may share ticks and traits lifted from its predecessor - and it's too soon to say if it will go on to achieve the same reputation as Scott's signature movie – but thanks to the artistry and craftsmanship of Villeneuve and everyone else involved, the goods have turned up freshly minted with a personality all its own, delivering a tale that resonates loudly with the here and now. It deserves your attention. 9/10.

Nia Vardalos deserves a lot of credit for the films success, she wrote it and is undoubtedly the star of the film, but after all the hype and acclaim the movie got i found it simply didn't engage me all that much. I appreciate that the film is well written and well made, but i just didn't find it particularly funny at any point in the film, and ultimately i became quite bored by the end.I was quite surprised that i didn't warm to this film, its certainly got charm and it does have a very well balanced cast, maybe i just didn't relate to what it was trying to say as a movie, or perhaps its just not as good as its hype; either way i'm in absolutely no hurry to see it again to find out.5/10

Edgar Wright just keeps getting better as a director, and his latest offering after the good Shaun of the Dead and better Hot Fuzz is a kind of super-speed-surrealist take on young love and imagined video-game battles. It's a geek-storm of comedy, the kind of effort that we don't get too often in movies that are dictated down by committee and tested so much for laugh ratios. There are so many things that go on in a scene in this film that some of it will pass by your head. Or maybe not; maybe it's just the right tone for a combo platter of comic-book/anime/manga/8-bit-to-PS3-video-game movie that knows itself and knows its intended audience so well that it can be so POP in its sensibility. This is a super-comedy, suffused in melodramatic romance and fiery action, for people who still wonder what it's like to be surprised at the movies.I wish I could contain my enthusiasm for the movie enough, but it's hard to do. Wright pulls off such a high-wire act, the likes of which take me back several years ago to Kill Bill Vol. 1, or to comedy masters like Mel Brooks. The filmmaker just *gets* it, how to pull off material that is nothing too new but with an original eye and perspective for what's funny. And in this story- of Scott Pilgrim, a "hipster" with a band (of course) dating a 17 year-old Catholic high school Asian girl named Knives (of course) and who falls for another hipster girl, Ramona Flowers (beautiful Mary Winstead) who dyes her hair every several days and has seven (give or take one or two) evil ex- boyfriends (and a girlfriend) to fight to the death- the intensity and energy goes hand-in-OMFG-hand with the subject matter. But what's even more impressive, as it was also with Hot Fuzz, is how much affection Wright really has for not just his source material, but how people who dig the culture and nature of it so much. He clearly does enjoy what's hip in music, video games, clothes, hair, action movies and kung-fu fights, but also knows how to satirize it until it bleeds its own blood. And boy does he get some juicy satire here, always in the name of good fun and, indeed, some melodrama. As Scott (Michael Cera in a kind of amalgam of his on-screen persona to a perfect nth degree) goes through these evil ex's, each with their own "quirks" and super-powers, such as one being an egotistical movie-star jerk and mega- Vegan (Chris Evans and Brandon Routh respectively, also both brilliant), we see how his character does go through an arc, that it's not all just fun and games. If a video game like No More Heroes took the perfectly- confused love tale of (500) Days of Summer, it might look like this... kinda.What it comes down to is that for everything that is familiar, even down to the coins doing their EXPLOSION on the ground after a baddie dies, or how rock bands awesomely suck so much that they become awesome again, this is shot and scored and performed like nothing else you've seen this year, or most years. Wright keeps throwing things at the audience, and knows (or hopes) they'll keep up. At the same time it never bores with its (::I snap fingers::) rhythm, and, and if a joke doesn't fly to the sky it still gives some chuckles or belly laughs. Lines are instantly quotable, and one can't wait to tell friends and others about this character or this shot or punch, or how Jason Schwartzman reacts when he swallows his gum. It's a radioactive treasure trove of romantic comedy, blazing action, random beats, well-timed reactions and physical gestures, awkward longing, and lots of kick-ass rock songs. In other words, if you dig it, it will be the cult movie of your time. If not... move along, or FIGHT in the arena! A+

Based on R2 DVD 92min.This is a nice little movie that has the charm of not taking itself too seriously and the wit to take itself seriously enough to keep me happy for the slightly short run time.Bacon and Ward are a good pairing for the leads, the romantic interest is low key and doesn't slow down the story and Gross [Family Ties] is most entertaining as the survivalist.

The JJ Abrams reboot/relaunch of Star Trek, albeit entertaining, suffers from being more of a space opera than the bona fide science-fiction movie we were promised. The movie knocks off the first Star Wars sometimes so closely one wonders if the scribes ("writers" might be an overstatement) are really interested in relaunching Star Trek or simply remaking A New Hope. Not quite "Star Wreck", to be fair... but damn close.As it is, the story follows a young prodigy - son of a legendary pilot - vegetating in the countryside and fulfilling his destiny by joining the Academy with a ragtag group of newcomers. This, only to wage a battle to destroy a planet-blasting secret weapon whose weak spot is the ever-convenient deactivated force field, while learning the basics of the Force (er, sorry, the basics of beaming one at warp speed!)... Hell, even the swordfights are here, so is the girl who (spoiler) ultimately hooks up with the *other* guy. (spoiler end)I've only seen a couple of 80's Trek films and zero episode of the TV show so I don't qualify as a trekkie but as a regular joe I thought it was lacking, on top of being derivative. Actors are mostly OK (except Yelchin and Pegg who were just silly and annoying; props to Pine, Quinto, Cho, Saldana, Urban and Greenwood though), the score is fabulous and the artistic direction top-notch. But I thought Abrams did a very average and gimmicky job, the baddie is uninteresting and lacks any sense of menace, the humor is childish and the action limp (save for the fantastic opening sequence).As for the humanistic and "adult" view of the space exploration inherent to the sci-fi genre, don't count on it: everything that was deemed "uncool" (ie: remotely clever) has been flushed out and the very last fight, on that aspect, left me scratching my head as (spoiler) I fail to see how "cool" - or humanistic, for that matter - it is to carpet bomb a wounded, black hole-stuck baddie who doesn't represent a threat anymore... (spoiler end)To me, this is the Iron Man of 2009: a sure-fire box office hit whose upsides (the cast and the visual effects) cannot overcome its shallow plot and "all fluff, no stuff" attitude. Entertaining, but utterly forgettable.

Even if i tried for a million years, i could not make this film worse. But stick a robot and a giant llama in and hey, you've got a decent film. It's good when the main character dies at the end, but the other one doesn't because she gets to experience the same kind of trauma i went through by sticking with watching it. The plot is absolutely awful, the scriptwriters evidently have no imagination, and at 3 hours, i would literally rather watch my cat sleeping. the actual best part is the theme song at the credits, no only joking, that's as bad as the film is. anyway, if you have 3 hours to kill, do something else, this is absolute tripe.

I gave this film a '7', not on the merits of the film itself, but because I love the concept - bringing together Victorian characters out of literature and onto the big screen. The film never took itself too seriously (that's for sure!) and seemed content to be relegated to B-movie status. But it could have been so much better, had there been more character development and attention to detail (e.g. when Quatermain jumps out of Nemo's speeding car, he doesn't roll on the ground after landing, as physics requires, but instead lands flatfooted as if he'd just jumped off a stair). Still, given all its shortcomings, I allowed myself to suspend copious amounts of belief and just have fun with watching this incredible assembly of extraordinary heroes.

127 Hours is an interesting movie because its strengths can also be its weaknesses. It's slow, not much happens and it is weirdly surreal. It depends on the audience how it's received. I actually thought this movie would rely more heavily on flashbacks than the actual situation the main character is in. It's better this way. While the cinematography and soundtrack are amazing, this movie still feels a bit weird because of how slow it is. It's very thrilling, very agonising, and it's pace makes it even worse - which makes it of course better.

Back in 1997, after the huge success of Independence Day, (A film I will never watch again, it's THAT stupid!) I was not a fan of Will Smith. His television show was annoying to watch, and I didn't like any of his films with the exception of Six Degrees of Seperation to which he tried some dramatic roles and succeded, (Far better than he did with Ali) However, with the original Men In Black, I actually liked Will Smith as his charming personality won me over. I liked the chemestry between Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as secret policemen who protect the Earth from the scum of the universe.Now it's five years later, and both Smith and Jones put their black suits back on for more alien busting in Men In Black II. Now while the sequel doens't have the freshness of the first film, it has a lot more action and I actually liked the action packed ending more than the slow finale of the first film. Smith and Jones are a joy to watch and I'm sure America will be watching Men In Black sequels as long as they continue to make money at the box office. (Please, Will, don't make an Independence Day sequel, though, that movie was awful!)In any case Men In Black II is a funny film, that while not as original or fresh as the first film, it does have a lot more energy than the first one does.7 on a scale of 1-10.

The most telling exposition is Pitt's line that we are ". . .two generations of men raised (sic) by women." This is a notion that one would expect that pudgy, wussie "moma's boy" Roger Ebert to fail to get. And Lord, does he fail to get it! (The review is available on the imdb) The notion that the problem is only two generations old is way off base, however. This started when boys ceased to be taught the arts of hunting and war, about the time farming became the mainstay of our economy. However, it became its most insidious when men left home to work and left their sons in the tender, tearful care of their mothers. En fin, the film is saying that we are taught that the world revolves around women and the business/government cabal . . . and that nothing else matters.The film's positions are that: 1. We don't know who we are because we are wired one way (aggressive, testosterone stuff) and taught another way (tender "no fighting", conniving manipulation, pretend to love each other stuff). I agree2. This was brought about by the business/government infrastructure who support the structure because it makes it less likely that they will be challanged. I disagree, though, by removing men from the rearing of their sons it has made a bad situation worse. At the very least it has certainly heightened the internal conflict in men. I do agree that business/government are happy with the status quo, for this and other reasons they scarcely understand.3. That the need for this kind of physical outlet for men is so serious that virtual "violence drones" can be created. I agree, anyone check the growing membership of right and left-wing militias recently?4. That the solution is the destruction of the economic infrastructure. Brad. . . as much as I like you as an actor, you wouldn't last 5 days in the environment this movie would create.The solution is far more complex and relies on our ability to find a way that will allow boys to be reared as men rather than women in drag (or men who are old well before their time).For provoking these thoughts, and for getting the (always hilarious) wussie response from Ebert and for being well filmed and acted the film is highly recommended.Oh, one more thing. Ebert is also wrong about the injuries incurred in fight club. Bare knuckle fights went on for 50 rounds or more, some one had to be knocked out. And until fighters donned gloves to protect the squeemish from the sight of blood, no one died from a brain injury (a little known fact that was a favourite of James Cagney's and which he would drop whenever people started talking about). There were far fewer broken bones than one would expect, noses and fingers being the most common.

In the first scene of "Waterworld" Kevin Costner urinates in a cup. This is a horrible beginning for one of the most anticipated films ever. I expected stunning visual effects, good acting, in other words a top notch action film. But this film, so anticipated by the world did none of the above. Instead the film crew skipped a entire available generation of visual effects and original action sequences for relatively mundane theatrics. My hero in this film is Dennis Hopper. He alone rescued this film from Total disaster. I was a youngster when I saw this film and Dennis Hopper was so scary and evil, I could not help thinking how much he enjoyed his role. I loved the ending because it demonstrated that at least the director was true to the story artistically . "Waterworld" was promoted as the new milestone of visual effects; instead the audience and I wasted two hours. When the movie ended, I remember that my father turned to me and said, "this film is lousy."I wish I could recommend this film because I expected so much from it but I can't. My rating is 6 out of 10.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug continues the exciting adventure of the hobbit Bilbo with 13 dwarfs and Gandalf (although he left halfway to investigate an important matter) to reclaim the lost kingdom of Erebor, which happens early before the events of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.As a prequel to famous The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug proved to be an entertaining, engaging and enjoyable fantasy adventure epic, much better than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in terms of action, humour and CGI and makeup effects for the beasts and creatures of the lore. The scenery shots for the film were magnificent as well. It's nice to see an old character again, the fan favourite (for females), Legolas, the brief mentioning of Gimli and the resurgence of Sauron and his dark forces.Although there are various subplots found in the film (introduction of a movie-only character, the meeting with Beorn and elves of Mirkwood, Tauriel and her brief romance with Kili, Gandalf's investigation and his eventual confrontation of an old and powerful foe, introduction of Bard and the people of Lake Town, the appearance of Smaug), Jackson managed them well by balancing the subplots with some exciting action scenes. Notably, the barrel chase, confrontation between Gandalf and 'Necromancer', Bilbo and Smaug scenes were well made enough to be considered the best scenes of the trilogy so far.Tauriel, the silvan elf is a great new addition to the LOTR lore, proving to be a capable fierce warrior like Legolas. It's always interesting to see a strong, capable woman in a male-dominating story. On the other hand, the appearance of Smaug is truly a presence to behold as we don't often see dragons of this scale in films.Despite its merits, it might be too far of a stretch to make a trilogy from a single book as it never feels as epic and grand as the LOTR trilogy...seemingly lacking a compelling central plot to move the story forward for a 161-mins film. The film also suffers from numerous contrivances, a common problem to many fantasy films...just to name a few: the spiders that manage to catch the group are not eating them immediately, Legolas & Tauriel seemingly always arrive in the nick of time to rescue the main characters, Bard the Bowman just happens to be around when they need help to cross the river, Smaug doesn't kill Bilbo immediately when he knows that he's there to steal the Arkenstone for the dwarfs...Although the film ends in a cliffhanger (and its shortcomings), which may upset some audience or fans, it's still proved to be a satisfying fun watch and I find myself excited to watch the last instalment of the trilogy, The Hobbit: There and Back Again next year.

Let me start off by saying I have seen this movie more than 3 times in the last week. You might ask why. Why would anyone waste their time and watch the same movie 3 times in one week? The answer i leave you with, is because this movie is human.In the first 5 minutes of the movie, the main character is kidnapped. From then on, i was completely sucked into the movie. Every action that the main character does is incredibly human. what i mean by that is, if you were him, you'd do the same thing as him. This isn't a crazy "all the sudden, i become a hero" kind of story that Hollywood gives you. This movie reaches down into every possible emotion that i can think of, and it does it very very well. I spent more time thinking about the movie than the 2 hours of absolute genius that it offers you.The acting in this movie is SUPERB. All of the actors are very well casted, and perform a superb job. I dare say that there are no bad actors in this whole movie. Revenge is the theme of this movie. Some say revenge only brings more blood, but the acting had me convinced that the bad guys deserved everything the get. As i said earlier, the acting is amazing. I can't even start to describe it using words. I even thought that it was better than Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects, and on par with Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left foot. The acting in the movie would EASILY be nominated for Oscars and probably win it too.I am unable to run out of complements for this movie, because the movie was so well made. After watching over 300 movies in the last 3 years, I believe this movie deserves to be on the top 100 movies on this website.I can honestly say that this movie is 2 hours of pleasure that you wont regret.

Five out of 10 is not that bad meaning I give it an OK rating. If you see it on video or for free than you ahead of the game. If you went to the theater than no so much. I'm not going to go into detail about the movie but its just about a story of a woman who screwed up her life, marriage and anything that moved. Then something tragic happens and she goes on a long hike then she forgives herself. That it about all there is to the movie. I would have made this review even shorter but the minimum length of the review is 10 lines so I had to drag the review out and throw in this information about the review to meet the minimum. Hopefully I have now met that minimum and it will let me submit it.

Shrek invented the whole using a big name cast and putting it on the poster, and this computer animated film used exactly the same tactic. Basically at New York's Central Park Zoo are Alex the Lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the Zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the Giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the Hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) to entertain the crowds of people visiting. Marty is tired of the same routine and wants to explore new places in the wild, so he escapes his cage, and Alex, Melman and Gloria break out to get him back. All four of them are put into crates bound for Africa, but when the ship is taken over by penguin Skipper (Tom McGrath) and his gang, the four friends are thrown overboard and swept on a tropical island. They explore the island and find a tribe of partying lemurs, led by King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen), along with Maurice (Cedric the Entertainer) who are very friendly. While Marty is excited to stay in this new world, Alex and the others want to go back to the zoo, with all the small dangers and trouble about, but by the end they change their opinions. Also starring Andy Richter as Mort the Mouse Lemur. The voices are all well chosen, and the sight and spoof gags are amusing, so while it doesn't quite have the splendour of Shrek, there is some fun to be had, especially for the kids. Worth watching!

Many people have defined the film truly repulsive, a waste of time, and nothing more than a porno, due to its high level of pornographic contents. That said, I don't see why films such as Blue Is the Warmest Colour, Don Jon and Shame had a different impact on public opinion.Nymphomaniac: Vol. I is a brave, provoking and philosophical piece of art. Lars von Trier strips sex of its romance and overloads it with nothing but lust.The highlight of the film, brilliantly written by Lars von Trier, is the very intense and philosophical dialogue between adult Joe, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Seligman, played by Stellan Skarsgård.The wonderful and unusual story is told with a superb photography, some provocative scenes, and other meaningful scenes, all accompanied by a music at irregular intervals, ranging from Bach's „Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ", to Rammstein's „Führe mich".Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a shameless and extremely cold performance as Joe. Making her debut as young Joe, Stacy Martin is fantastic.

I had heard a lot about this movie, and my girlfriend was a very big fan of the film, so I was looking forward to it. I thought it was good, but I felt like there were some things missing.First of all, the positives. Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny both give very good performances. I'm not really sure that either performance is "Oscarworthy", as many people have said, but they both fall into their characters and make you believe in what they're doing. The other performances were also very good. The other positive was how the director caught the feel of the helplessness of Falls City (the town where this takes place). The dark, moody lighting and the decay that seemed to surround their lives was the perfect backdrop for the film.However, the film does have problems. Brandon Teena's story is not fully explained. Unless you are aware of her story, you don't know how she wound up becoming sexually confused, and a little more explanation of this would have been helpful. The other problem I had was with the pacing. As a lot of people on the comments board have noted, this movie is very slow. Some movies are slow in that they build up to something, but the pacing in this movie is very bad. The writer probably intended to give you an idea of what a nothing existence there is in Falls City, but instead it makes you wonder when the payoff is coming.But it is a good movie. It makes you think about homosexuality in Middle America, which is definitely something worth thinking about and not ignoring. I do get the feeling that this movie was made for people who are A)very knowledgeable about the Brandon Teena story and B) very sympathetic to her and to homosexual issues in general. However, the film isn't exclusionary or limited in that way. It did need to be a little more fleshed out, though, to truly make it a four-star movie, which this film wasn't. 7/10.

As the result of a childhood Christmas wish, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) has been best friends with his walking, talking, very-much-alive teddy bear Ted (Seth MacFarlane) for the past twenty seven years; together, they hang out and enjoy the finer things in life, like quality weed and repeat viewings of camp sci-fi classic Flash Gordon. Things look set to change, however, when John's girlfriend of four years, Lori (Mila Kunis), suggests that the time has come for her boyfriend to become a more responsible person and for Ted to finally find a place of his own.With Ted, writer/director/performer Seth MacFarlane has made one of the few films to star Mark Wahlberg that I actually like (the others being Fear and Boogie Nights). Of course, my enjoyment of Ted has very little do with its leading man, but a lot to do with MacFarlane's laugh-out-loud, unapologetically politically-incorrect script, his confident direction and hilarious voice-over work. It doesn't hurt either that the film features the lovely Mila Kunis as John's love interest, a brilliant self-mocking cameo from none other than Flash Gordon himself, Mr Sam Jones, and top-notch special effects that ensure that the film titular character is someone (something?) you can really care about.7.5/10, happily rounded up to 8 for having Ted beat the crap out of Wahlberg.

When you begin to critique a film, some thing of the script, the special effects, or the camera shots, but most think of the performance of the actors. The majority of the time the actors make or break the film. It is possible for famous actors to not do so well in films while unheard of actors may come to stardom with an uncharacteristic performance that blows the audience away. Ted Demme made a very important decision when making the film Blow by casting the lead role to Johnny Depp. Without this choice, it is very possible this film could have been a total bust instead of one so effective and engaging. Johnny Depp plays the protagonist in the film, George Jung. Depp is a very well known actor who has played many different roles in his lifetime, but seems the perfect fit for Jung. While Depp is more known for his less serious and comedic roles nowadays such as in the Pirates of the Caribbean series and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, most of the current generation does not know about his serious roles in films early in his career. His persona as an actor is known in many different ways because of his wide variety of character traits. From his witty sense of humor, to his charismatic personality, to his mysterious and perplexing behavior, Depp can play almost any role. In Blow he plays George Jung, an ambitious 18 year old who wants to get away form his poor working class upbringing in Massachusetts so he moves out to California to start new and "conquer the world". Throughout the movie, Jung is depicted as a very intelligent and determined individual who always appears to be trying to prove someone or something wrong. He very quickly takes over the drug empire on the West Coast and back home in the East Coast before he starts collaborating with the Colombian cartel. All along the way Depp uses his variety of traits and portrays an aspiring, yet very lazy young individual who uses his charisma and seriousness to get what he wants. As stated in the New York Times review of the film, "Mr. Depp's sorrowful countenance is the still point at the center of ''Blow's'' swirling hyperactivity, and his witty, spare performance gives the picture a poignancy -- a depth of feeling" (Scott 1). The strong character of Depp makes you question your morals as you begin to root for Jung and hope he does not get caught while he is illegally distributing drugs. As you start to support a man who is breaking the law, you realize you are doing so because you like George. You want to meet George. You want to be friends with George. Some may even want to be George. The audience feels sympathy for him because of his past and understands why he is doing what he is doing. It even breaks your heart in the end when he gets caught and sent to prison for life. Jung is the anti-hero of the film, the protagonist who lacks idealistic views and morality, yet is the main focus of the plot. Rolling Stone said: "Depp is dynamite, showing how George is susceptible to temptation but also to feelings and pain. It's not every actor who could survive the series of wigs and ruinous fashions that mark George as Sixties hippie, Seventies drug lord and Eighties cocaine casualty." (Travers 1) While jokes are made about the physical change in Depp's appearance with his numerous different hairstyles to match the culture of those decades, the main focus is how his character changes and adapts throughout the film based on his experiences. Depp starts Jung off as a quiet and underachieving kid from Massachusetts who gets a taste of the good life when he finds success dealing marijuana in California. Next, you slowly start to see Jung's character change as he starts operations back east and in Mexico. His success fuels his ambition and temptation, which as a result raises his ego and confidence. As George joins the big leagues and begins to work with the Colombian cartel in the cocaine industry, you finally see his character in full swing. At this point, he has turned into a psychotic drug dealer bent on making more money than he could even begin to imagine what to do with. He forgets about his family, his wife and daughter, and just wants to make money. Whether it be getting shot for not releasing information or defying the leader of the cartel, Pablo Escobar, George gets in many deadly situations which is something his character at the beginning of the movie never would have done. All along the way Depp is sensational in depicting these changes and as Peter Travers described in his review of the film, he is simply "dynamite". This movie demanded an outstanding actor to play the lead role, and Demme's choice of filling that role with Johnny Depp is ingenious. It would not have been the same if someone else were in his position. He fits the role perfectly, and as a result created an incredible film.

There are others, but there are 2 film themes that come up over and over in films -- amnesia and time travel -- and almost never work. Amnesia only worked well in one film that I remember -- Ronald Colman's "Random Harvest". "Frequency" is not about amnesia. It is about time travel. And this is that rare movie about time travel that actually works and is rather engrossing.One reason that this works is because they don't try to apply the theme to world-wide events. Instead, they focus on a father and his son over about 3 decades. The father a fire fighter, the son a policeman. As in common with such themes, every time the father and son intervene to change family history, unintended things also happen. So as they fix one thing, something else goes wrong, and then that needs to be fixed. And it all involves trying to solve some serial murders that happened years ago. And how do the father and son communicate over all those years -- the same ham radio that seems to derive special powers due to the aurora. A little far-fetched? Of course. But it works, and it works well. In fact, the way things happen is rather ingenious. And there are points where you may find yourself sitting on the edge of your chair.The father here is played by Dennis Quaid. Typically, I can take him or leave him. But he's very, very good here. The son is played by Jim Caviezel, who is equally as good as Quaid. Andre Braugher is a police detective who gets caught in the middle of a murder investigation that appears to incriminate his friend. Everyone else does their jobs, although none play parts big enough to deserve special mention.This film is done well enough that even though you realize the story is impractical, you find yourself thinking -- yes, that makes sense.

An excellent movie that struggles to define Life and Humanity. The characters are full and human. They have massive internal struggles while defending themselves and others. Ghost is not your standard Sci Fi flick but perhaps does the best job of entertaining and making you think. I would classify Ghost as pure Cyberpunk, as William Gibson originally wrote it.The graphics are the best that I have ever seen out of Japan or Disney; however, the "Ghost" world is VERY dark and brooding.If you buy one Anime title to start, make it Ghost in the Shell. I originally picked up this title on a whim before collecting Anime and now I have over 50 titles. Ghost is still my favorite, although I am also partial to Dirty Pair, Slayers, Evangelion, and Ninja Scroll.

This is one of the most boring, absurd movies I have ever seen. I usually seek out good movies to watch rather than watch trash put out by Hollywood. I assumed that this was a great movie since it had won at Cannes and had a 8.0 at IMDb.The only uplifting moment in the movie for me came because of "Die Moldau" by Smetana. I am writing this because I feel cheated out of my time and money (I drove from College Station to Dallas to watch this) by being misled by people who praised this movie. I used to have a lot of faith in the movies that won at Cannes, but this is truly absurd.Some call it artistic and creative. I wanted to be 'moved' and transformed by a movie. This did neither. It was absolutely boring from the moment it started till it ended. My thoughts during the movie were "when is this going to make any sense?", "when is it going to become interesting", "why are there dinosaurs?" "When is Sean Penn going to speak?" Is that a clip from the 'Planet earth?' " and "is it over yet?"

This is a rare movie. Very unique, it does something most movies can only dream of. It is BETTER than the original. Better Special Effects, better Cast, and better plot. Although it is rather long, you will NOT be bored when watching this movie.It picks up where Part one left off. Only this time the Terminators are After Sarah's son. I dont thin I can agree to put Arnold in a good guy position. I mean it went well, but He would have been a bad ass robot again. In short, If you want a lot of action and fun go rent or buy this movie.10/10

Straightforward auctioneer that's not over-indulgent or fantastic. Having read Ludlum's commercial pot-boiler as in the early 80s as a kid, I expected possibly a louder B-grade flash-bang version of the dull 1988 TV movie starring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. I'm glad to say that the film is better although there are many changes to turn it into a "blockbuster" action show. It delivers a quite consistent level of well shot action/violence (Frankenheimer's excellent Ronin with its European setting comes to mind) and easy-to-understand intrigue. No Bond gadgets, John Woo bullet ballets or gangsta pansy posing. People complaining about it lacking the depth of the book can't seem to understand the book-to-film transition, and that this is no classic literary tome in the first place.Despite Damon's natural easy-going boyish charm, his character remains a cold professional throughout, curt in speech and clinical in action, commanding authority even when he decides to bang the chick. It could have been a Talented Mr Ripley conflict of coldness and vulnerability, but Bourne comes across in the end as lacking any strong characterisation, probably quite apt for a professional killer. This opens the film to arguments that the characters are never fleshed out properly, which is not important here. The female interest (Franka Potente) grows increasingly irritating as Lola becomes tired of Running.Being released in competition with another actioneer with a European setting, the flashy xXx with Vin Diesel, the Bourne Identity delivers a professional Hollywood job with a Euro feel, despite the indie roots of the director (Doug Liman). Probably won't win any Oscars but it sure wins a place in my shortlist for DVD buys. Well made watchable entertainment.

I was totally hyped until I've read the first critics reviews and was really scared to be disappointed. After the first user opinions I was a bit calmed down but now after watching the movie...Oh my god, this was so good!!! They nailed it almost totally and I enjoyed it so much. While the credits where rolling I just wanted to start from the beginning again. They really captured the heart of the game and managed to bring it to a bigger audience.I already love the Resident Evil Movies but can admit, that they do not have the same feeling like the games and are just random actioners. But the Assassin's Creed Movie, really felt like the game and also like a big movie.If you love the franchise, go ahead and enjoy the movie.

There have been occasions where I've seen an English language remake based on an original foreign film version and liked it just as much as the original, these include The Ring and Let Me In (Let the Right One In), I was surprised to see this one directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network) in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book rather than the original, but I love both equally. Basically, set in Stockholm, Sweden, co-owner of Millennium magazine, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has ruined his reputation losing a libel court case against corrupt businessman Hans-Erik Wennerström (Ulf Friberg), but he is given a special assignment by business magnate Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). The rich old man wants Blomkvist to pick up the investigation of his missing grand-niece Harriet who disappeared forty years ago and may have been murdered, he only agrees to investigate because Vanger worked alongside Wennerström and has damning evidence that may help him in court. Meanwhile investigating Blomkvist is brilliant but damaged researcher and computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Rooney Mara, from the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street), also she has mental incompetency and is therefore under state legal guardianship, lawyer Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wageningen) is appointed to be her guardian after the previous had a stroke. Bjurman abuses his authority and has her perform sexual favours for him to get money or whatever, starting with blowjobs and then he violent rapes her, but he didn't realise she had a secret camera filming it, and next day she returns to tazer him, tie him up, rape him with a dildo, and blackmails him to give her good progress reports and give her control of her money, and to make sure he remembers she tattoos the words "I am a rapist pig". Going through a notebook from Vanger, Blomkvist is trying to decipher written names and numbers in a notebook, his daughter identifies them as Bible references, and to help him with his research Vanger's lawyer Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff) recommends him to see Salander who he knows is researching him. With her computer skills she finds a connection between a series of murders of young women killed between 1947 and 1967 and the way that they were killed, the Bible references seem to be clues as to how the victims will be killed, and during their time together Salander and Bromkvist become lovers, she is unaware he is already lovers with Erika Berger (Robin Wright). Harriet's brother and operational head of the Vanger empire Martin Vanger (Stellan Skarsgård) is identified by Henrik's brother Harald (Per Myrberg) as a possible suspect, and doing her research Salander uncovers that his deceased father Gottfried and him did indeed commit the murders. Trying to get more clues Blomkvist breaks into Martin's house, but he is caught out trying to get away unnoticed and Martin chains him up, and attempts to kill him using a bag for suffocation and is about to stab him, but Salander arrives in time to stop this and chase Martin out, until they speed on the road, Martin crashes his car due to the icy road, and he dies when it blows up. Before he died Martin did admit to the other murders, but not to killing Harriet, so Blomkvist is nursed back to health by Salander, and in bed she admits that at twelve years old she tried to kill her father, and recovered he goes to see Harriet's sister Anita (Joely Richardson) because he is convinced she is still alive and her sister would know where she is. After waiting some time for Anita to contact Harriet and following her movements, Blomkvist correctly deduces that Anita is actually Harriet herself, she explains that she changed her identity and ran away because her father and brother sexually abused her for years, and she saw Martin kill their father in self-defence, the real Anita smuggled her away, after years however she tearfully returns to Sweden and reunites with her grand-uncle Henrik. The rich old man keeps his promise and give the journalist the evidence he wanted Wennerström, but it turns out to be useless, but Salander on the computer proves the businessman has been doing wrong, and Millennium publishes the article about him that ruins him and forces him to leave the country, she also hacks into all his accounts, and travels in disguise, to transfer, into various accounts, the sum of 2 billion Euros. The end sees Wennerström found murdered, Salander tells her guardian she is in love with Blomkvist, but before she can give him a Christmas present she spots him with Erika, and heartbroken she throws away the present and rides away on her motorbike somewhere. Also starring Geraldine James as Cecilia Vanger, Goran Visnjic as Dragan Armansky, The Secret of Crickley Hall's Donald Sumpter as Detective Inspector Gustaf Morell, Tony Way as Plague, EastEnders' Martin Jarvis as Birger Vanger and Alan Dale as Detective Isaksson. Craig gives a good cool performance as the disgraced journalist given an assignment, Mara is just as fascinating and engaging as Noomi Rapace was with her feisty, clever and sometimes dangerous attitude, and the supporting cast members, including Skarsgård and Plummer do their parts really well also. The direction by Fincher is well paced, the story remains pretty much the same as the original Swedish version, but with a couple of new additions in terms of action, it does not feel like you are watching the same film, it is a brilliantly watchable crime thriller. It won the Oscar for Best Film Editing, and it was nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Cinematography and Best Original Music for Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Original Score. Very good!

Released in 1991, "Point Break" stars Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze, Gary Busey and Lori Petty. Reeves is FBI agent "Johnny Utah" - how's that for a name - who teams up with Busey to find bank robbers who have robbed something like 30 banks. The robbers wear presidential masks - Reagan, Nixon, that crowd. After watching the tapes of the robbery, it's concluded that these guys are surfers. Reeves goes in to learn not only surfing, but the surfing culture, to see if he can figure out who the robbing surfers are.I found this film overly long, and it's really one that needs to be seen on the big screen because of the tremendous scenes of surfing and sky diving, which looked magnificent. There is also a remarkable chase scene where Reeves chases the dude with the President Reagan mask.Patrick Swayze is very good as Bodhi, a surfer who lives for the adrenaline rush, and Gary Busey is believable as Reeves' partner. For the most part, however, the acting is unimpressive. Keanu Reeves is deliciously handsome, but I've never believed a word he says in any film. To me, he's just not a very good actor, nor is Lori Petty, who plays his connection into the surfer world. There's something hollow and external about both performances.If you have a big screen TV, you should enjoy this movie.

Not all movies need to follow the same text book and vanilla plot and story line. This piece was beautifully written, exceptionally portrayed and delivered every bit of emotion it was meant to.While I'll be honest in the fact that it definitely wasn't Edward Norton's best piece of work and disappointingly he brought down the over all quality of this film, Will Smith (as always) boosted this challenging story to a height beyond expectation. The supporting cast was also extremely strong and aided in the overall success of this film.In reading the other reviews, I've heard this story as being a sad one. Without question, it's based on an extremely sad under tone however, I believe the over arching message that morphs from this is far deeper and draws out inspiration, courage, love and understanding. Watch it. It's worth it.

In Sweet Home Alabama, Melanie thinks she's better than everyone in Alabama because of where she lives and where she works and because of her relationship with the mayor's son. Furthermore, Melanie goes back to Alabama only to realize what she's been missing all along.On October 23, 2005 I watched Sweet Home Alabama in my bedroom. This was my third time watching it. Earlier this year I watched it with a group of friends at there house. My first time watching Sweet Home Alabama was at the Orpheum Theater when it first played in Kodiak.I believe that Melanie thinks she's better than everyone in Alabama because she compares her lifestyle to their lifestyle. Melanie's lifestyle is fast, on the edge and what most people would say luxurious. On the other hand, the people in Alabama have a slower lifestyle, more laid back and they all have ordinary jobs. I think Melanie compares her job and her city to Alabama when really there is no comparison. The city and the country are on opposite ends of the spectrum. It all comes down to what you like and what fits your lifestyle. I think Melanie starts to realize what fits her lifestyle toward the end of the film. At heart, Melanie is a small town country girl who is happy with making an average amount of money. This is what she realizes when she comes back to Alabama.When Melanie makes the trip back to Alabama, she's engaged with the mayor of New York's son. To me, this is another reason why Melanie thinks she's better than everyone else. This guy could give her the life she never had and the life her mom had always wanted her to have. The life that I'm talking about is the one full of security and pampering. Since the guy she was going to marry had incredible amounts of money, she could go off and do whatever she had ever dreamed of doing. I think this was tempting to her because she thought she wanted all the things that Alabama couldn't give her. In reality, Alabama had everything she had ever known or really wanted. She didn't think she could like "the guy next door" because that wasn't how everything was supposed to work out. Her plan was to go off to bigger and better things and meet the guy of her dreams. The guy of her dreams was supposed to be tall, dark and handsome with lots of money. She thought she needed that guy who looked like he was going somewhere and a guy who could giver her the security she had always wanted. Liking the average Joe like Jake was almost impossible thinking for her after she had moved to New York. It was almost like she had standards for the guy that she was dating. Towards the end of the movie she realized that money doesn't make you happy and that love is all that should matter in the end.Now that I have watched Sweet Home Alabama for the third time, I can say that she has found what she has been missing all along. She was missing the life that Alabama gave her the first time around. Alabama is where she started and Alabama is where she will end.I thought this whole dilemma that Melanie had going on was helpful for the audience to fully understand the point of the movie.

The horror genre is probably the most perplexing genre in the cinematic medium, not because of its inherent qualities but because of the countless ways in which a movie stops being scary and starts rolling eyes. In a successful scary movie, one can expect a finite amount of characterisation mixed with tension and adequate construction of dense atmospheres and antagonists if there should be any. In The Strangers, such a sweet spot is achieved many times throughout, and it's during these moments that writer/director Bryan Bertino shows that he knows how to craft an eerie and downright scary experience to be part of. Yet too often does the film collapse under its own weight as laziness creeps in. Outside of Bertino's more refreshing techniques, he irritatingly resorts to tired clichés, dull narrative and predictable storytelling; it's a mixed bag of brilliantly executed originality and formulaic, cookie cutter banality.Taking place for the most part in a single summer home, The Strangers is a claustrophobic nightmare that persists in its will to take that image of safety (home) and turn it into a confinement of horror. Through this general idea Bertino crafts an extremely effective way in which to engage the viewer; the warm comforting log cabin fireplace, the folk music, the backdrop of isolation and tranquil wilderness, all combining to create a sense of false security that always reeks of foreboding doom. Focusing the first twenty minutes on troubled couple Kristen McKay and James Hoyt, the script introduces us to the domestic heart of the story; a squabble and misunderstanding between two lovers. Not only does it add to the light hearted feel of the opening sequences but it develops the characters into heart-driven, fully empathetic beings, and when terror comes knocking at the door, we too are feeling the fear.Unfortunately for all the good that the director does through the film's first act, the quality suddenly begins to dip shortly after the climax of tension has been reached. The second act of the story is much less coherent and more bumbling in its pace; there are genuine scares scattered throughout as a result of these freaky little visitors to the couple's cabin at four in the morning, yet the general structure and workings behind the scenes draw too much attention to themselves at key points. Everything from the screaming female tripping and breaking her ankle to the hereditary 'split up' of the pair for no logical reason but to satisfy the already developed structure frame are here, and it's irksome more than terrifying. Through this mix of studied technique and less than inspiring storytelling which too often puts structure ahead of natural storytelling, The Strangers feels satisfying in its ability to deliver horror, but simply doesn't do enough to cover up the glaring holes in its unconvincing façade.As characters, Bertino neglects his three catalysts of fear to mere device-like movement only; they are facades and masks, and no real identity to them is ever given. This technique works well during the film's earlier moments when the director's aim is to scare out of their unknown presence, yet when the feature moves on and on and the three masks are exploited at every time to scare, their lack of motivation hurts the film's ability to sustain suspense. As protagonists, Kristen and James are of standard horror movie build; she is fragile and prone to screaming, and James, although a lot less macho than most male leads, is just as ill-fated to poor decision making. Individually, neither of them ever show any real sense of compelling attributes to cling onto, yet as a pair they at least share enough dynamics and chemistry to warrant the movie's key moments of characterisation.Thankfully the movie doesn't end in a big bang and there is little in the way of cliché to be found leading up to it; it's unenlightening sure, but it's got enough conviction to carry off the film into positive light. This hollow note that finishes it all off is representative of the film as a whole, and of course Bertino's skills as a director of horror. Despite obvious flaws in storytelling, the majority of what is on display here is genuinely thrilling at its peaks and mildly compelling in its valleys. Through a startling score that punctuates the atmosphere poignantly and photography that captures the eeriness of these strangers' ominous presence, Bertino employs all the tricks in the book to deliver the scares, and while the whole product as a whole feels more like an exercise in technique, there's nevertheless plenty to behold regardless of any inconsistencies in narrative. Taken as a whole, The Strangers is a strong first attempt from newcomer writer/director Bryan Bertino who shows definite flair for crafting suspenseful scenes of terror and bringing out strong emotion from all his cast.A review by Jamie Robert Ward. For more reviews of all the latest movies please visit: http://www.invocus.net

If there's a film that will be sold on word of mouth alone this summer, it's The Hangover. With a funny but unspectacular trailer, a plot (guys go to Vegas for bachelor party and crazy things happens) that seems overly familiar, and stars who are relative unknowns there's nothing to suggest anything hugely promising. But those who have seen it can surely testify that it's a 24-carat piece of comedy gold, for once you can believe the marketing moguls...we have been graced by the sleeper comedy hit of the summer. On closer inspection it shouldn't actually have been that surprising, Todd Phillips occupies the director's chair and his previous output includes such hits as Road Trip, Old School and Starsky and Hutch. 'The Hangover' though easily surpasses those by merit of providing regular and consistent laughs amidst backdrop of a frenetic and unrelenting morning after.The problems most comedies face are that they have to put all their best laughs in the trailer, so by the time the film comes around the funniest parts lose their impact and the rest of the film is disappointing in comparison. This is a problem The Hangover sidesteps masterfully. Yes we know they wake up with no memory of what went before; there's a baby, a tiger, a chicken, a missing tooth, someone's married a hooker and (in an unsurprisingly bizarre cameo) Mike Tyson turns up...but these moments, albeit hilarious, aren't what make the film tick. The heart of the film is in the chemistry between the three leads; Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are likable and identifiable enough for an audience to go along with events that could quite easily in another context seem ridiculous. Alan in particular is a character that could really grind your gears if he turned up in certain films, as part of the affable trio however he grows on you immensely.This success may partly be credited to casting unfamiliar faces but the actors themselves deserve huge credit. Cooper may already be slightly familiar to some and is undoubtedly a star in the making (having been cast this week as Faceman in the new A Team flick), Helms is best known for his stint in the US version of the office, Galifianakis though has come completely out of the blue and it wouldn't be at all a surprise to see him follow a career path similar to Seth Rogen's post Knocked Up. The missing groom Doug (Justin Bartha) also deserves an honourable mention for slotting effortlessly into the group when around, it's a shame the plot requires him to go missing for the most part. There's also perfectly pitched cameos for Heather Graham, Jeffrey Tambor, Ken Jeong and best of all Rachael Harris who is magnificently vile as the hapless Stu's wife.Phillips has no qualms puts his characters through the wringer, there's one shocking revelation after another as the people, animals and events they encountered the night before come back to bite them on the ass during the search for Doug. As the audience know as little as the characters do the reactions ring true, they suspend disbelief as colossally silly events are only matched in magnitude by the sound of laughs in the theatre. The Hangover never quite lets up - the laughs even continue way into the credits - so it should come as no surprise that a sequel is already being planned. Having come up with something so fresh here the producers will have to be careful not to suffer from a hangover themselves the second time around.Verdict: Brilliant chemistry and a few plot tweaks make The Hangover better than you could possibly be expecting going in. It's funny from start to finish and is guaranteed to have you leaving the cinema with a smile on your face.

its a fashion to rave about a film and give it a cult status...same goes for this one...it may win best film and the best actor in upcoming Oscars but for me this film was not up to the expectation it arose after so many star ratings it gets here on IMDb..frankly its a Hollywood satire on the American society and its a morbid take on American beauty and American history type films and shows how the have ones are suffering more then the have not of the world..compare the situation with the one in film LION and you will understand what I'm talking about...is American & European society suffering from getting too much in their platter ? ..whereas the developing nations and third world countries which still are rattling with existential & survival issues are more optimistic in approach....here the melancholy of western society in comparison even after being materially secure is astonishing...i support the films like lion and also the fantasy musical la la land which is more real then Manchester on the sea..a self inflicting pain indeed this one.

I had a chance to watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind four or five years ago and remembered being confused the first time around. But I wasn't turned off by the movie; in fact, I gave it another go because I was hooked by how creative and original it was. It has since become my favorite movie of all time. For this reason, I only have nice things to say about the film. Directed by Michel Gondry, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind follows Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) who finds out that his girlfriend, Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) has erased him from her memory thanks to Lacuna, Inc., an innovative company that ensures customers will get their undesirable memories deleted. Joel learns that the reason behind this is because his ex is currently not happy with their relationship. Heartbroken by her action, Joel decided to go through the same procedure to ease his pain only to realize that there are also those memories that are worth keeping. The premise sounds promising enough, and the way the movie was executed was mesmerizing. Written with such originality by Charlie Kaufman (the credits also go to Pierre Bismuth and Gondry himself), the story was brought onto screen by Gondry with creativity and satisfaction. Gondry was deft when it comes to realizing sci-fi elements in the script on screen without looking superficial or unrealistic. Gondry also employed the non-linear narrative style to convey the story, rendering the movie ambiguous yet remarkable and effective especially when it comes to the memory scenes in which the procedure works by erasing the latest memory to the earliest. Such filmic technique constitutes the heart and soul of the film.Joel becomes hesitant about the procedure once he relives his memories and at one point in the film, he even decides to call it quit in order to keep the good memories with Clementine. He then tries to escapes with Clementine by running off the map the erasure team has created in Joel's brain as part of the process, thus disrupting it. The cinematography in many of these sequences was visually impressive with some cool camera tricks (e.g., forced perspective to realize the kitchen scenes where Joel travels back to his four-year-old self). Some minor special effects, editing, and creative mise-en-scène were employed in a way that create some of the most bizarre scenes in the film. The score by Jon Brion fits in with the tone of the film perfectly. Some of the pieces were just beautiful. The acting couldn't have been better, especially from the two leads who gave the performances of their lifetimes. Both Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet shared a great chemistry together. Carrey injected so much life to his character and was surprisingly remarkable and entertaining as Joel and deserved an Oscar nomination for this. He did the comedic scenes as well as the dramatic ones in the film. Winslet was a breath of fresh air as Clementine and shone in her role as Clementine. She brought her character to screen with spontaneity, vitality and charisma. It is completely understandable why Joel loves Clem so much. The supporting cast does not go unnoticed. Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood and Kirsten Dunst were a lot of fun to watch. Tom Wilkinson was fine as Dr. Mierzwiak, who plays an important role for the plot. The backstory and revelation of his character becomes a poignant twist that serves to question the idea of eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind succeeded in combining drama with comedy and sci-fi. It's not pretty nor sugar-coated in its approach, but surreal and bizarre that results in a powerful emotional ride and delight of the film. The movie will stand the test of time as being one of the most creative and original story ever written and made.

Chinatown is a masterpiece...plain and simple. It is a one of a kind film that is without flaw. I'm sure some would argue with me, but in my honest opinion it is a perfect work of art. The direction by master-class helmsman Roman Polanski is incredible, creating demanding images and performances by those involved. Jack Nicholson as the against-type private detective Jake J. Gittes depicts a hero that none have seen before or after. Faye Dunaway is in an unrivaled performance as Evelyn Mulwray, a mysterious beauty who hides a lot more than she can handle. Really, though, John Huston manages to become a scene-stealer as the vile aristocrat Noah Cross, who creates a villain so memorable, it puts so many to shame. The story by Robert Towne is crafted with great precision and pacing, using the water scandal of Los Angeles in the 1910's and 20's as a backdrop to the main story. Gittes is approached by a woman claiming to be Evelyn Mulwray (Diane Ladd) and asks him to investigate her husband, Hollis Mulwray, the city's chief engineer of the water department. After a bit of small sleuthing and following Mulwray, he catches him with a blonde and the photographs he's taken become a treasure for the press. In steps the real Evelyn Mulwray (Dunaway), who threatens to sue Gittes for his investigation into her husband, which she didn't warrant. Unfortunately several days later, Hollis is found dead in the reservoir and thus begins the investigation as to who framed him and killed Hollis Mulwray. Usually in the hands of any other director or writer, this could've turned into a run-of-the-mill whodunit, but Towne's scripts adds so many unexpected twists and turns throughout the story, leading the audience to unexpected places. Evelyn's shocking revelation is just one of the great surprises that bombards the viewer. The thing that really brings the film together, though, is the ending. Towne had something much more upbeat in mind, but Polanski, who had gone through a great trauma 5 years before the film's production, decided a more human ending was necessary, which makes the film so much greater. "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown," will ring in the viewers ears even after the credits have rolled. Ah, I almost forgot to mention Jerry Goldsmith's score, which brings the film a great atmosphere, much akin to that of The Maltese Falcon, another great crime-noir (which was directed by John Huston.). In concluding I say that Chinatown is pure cinema. And I mean PURE CINEMA. You just can't get any better with Chinatown.

Well, what can i say about the movie that scared me the most in the last 5.000 years? :)I guess that by now everyone has heard of it... some people liked it, some don't. I'm one of those that loved it.First, the movie has this "feeling" of reality, that convincing look, that strange resemblance with the everyday people and live. I found that kind of "ambience" in only one more feature: The Simpsons TV series, although for completely different reasons.In the Simpsons, i think that the sounds and the voice acting were extremely reality-inducing.In TBWP, every part of it (picture, sound, acting, improvising) transpires a strange sense of real life happenings, that no special effects can buy...The movie is quite slow for some time, i must admit. But thats part of its "magic": the viewer must be given the change to "relate" with the characters, to know then, to care for them.I think that it didn't work for some people, but then again, some people loved Holywood's Godzila, which show us that we are all different from each other... :)Anyway, the last 20 or 15 minutes are the most dense and mind blowing piece of movie that i've seen for quite some time... i actualy got scare a couple of times, even though we don't see much "explicities" on the screen. Its our own mind that scare us.Just to finish this lenghty review, i would like to say that the ending is just p-e-r-f-e-c-t, a wonderfull climax to those last 20 minutes of adrenaline and worries.My advice? See it like if it was something that popped up on the evening news, let yourself be "absorbed" by its reality, and forget all those teen-slashing flicks

Louis Zamperini is someone truly amazing. He was the gladiator of WW2. The life of Louis is a Hollywood story. Unfortunately Angelina Jolie destroy it. This should have been the next Forrest Gump or Saving Private Ryan, but instead it turn into a churned out war movie with no flow. I felt so rushed through the movie that I could even follow who anyone was. I read the book, so was very familiar with the men the surrounded Louis, but I couldn't even name most that were in the movie. There were points when I wasn't even sure who Louis Zamperini was in the movie. A story like this should have never been put into an amateur's hands to create. I won't even take my WW2 veteran grandfather to see it, because I don't want to see the disappointment on his face. You can't capture this man's life in a 2 hour movie.

Del Torro is a piece of art! The movie is brilliant put together. Very real - very realistic. Douglas is also very good but thats not any news.

I saw this movie when it first came out (naturally), and while I liked it, there was something wrong with it that I couldn't put a finger on. I saw it again, and got the same feeling. That time I was able to figure out this feeling came at the beginning of the 3rd act, but still couldn't figure out what was wrong. I just saw it for a third time, and finally figured it out: it was lacking in tension.Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of it, but I felt it lacking in comparison to that of the second act. I thought the moment of highest tension was the confrontation between Batman and the Joker in the interrogation room, when Batman was teetering on the edge of breaking his one rule. After that, there was tension, but Batman's moment of crisis had passed, leaving the only question of whether he could stop the Joker's "social experiment".But Mr. Nolan gets an "A" for effort. He really tried to outdo himself, and with the exception of that problem, he did. I will definitely come out for his next effort.Oh yeah, one last thing: believe the hype about Heath Ledger's performance. As last performances go, this was a great one. I'm starting to think there maybe something to all this talk about a posthumous Oscar.

I love this movie. It is one of my favorite movies of all time. Of course, the book is better, it has more detail in it. But overall I think that the movie had some pretty awesome detail in it. I recommend this to anyone who has seen, and liked, "The Hobbit". If you are going to watch this movie, then I suggest that you get prepared for random attacks, jumping up in your seat from a monster on the screen, or even get a little bit excited for the romance that is in the movies, of the series. If you don't like "Harry Potter", this is still a good movie for you to watch. You should probably watch the movies in order, because the last one will make like no sense what-so-ever. Be prepared for action and adventure, because that is what this movie is all about. Thank you for taking time to read my review on "The Lord of the Rings""The Return of the King".

This is an instant classic Tarantino film. It's like all of his other movies put into one. He also uses mostly actors from his other movies... well even more than the usual. Admittedly this film can start off slow if you are not a Quentin Tarantino fan or don't know how his movies are. As a fan you watch and wait anticipating a good finally and it doesn't disappoint. He seems to cater this movie to the fans of his previous titles and so the haters are out strong on this one.Like Django unchained, this film starts off post civil war but doesn't touch on the black and white topic as much. Still though with Samuel Jackson being a black bounty hunter back in those times has its similarities with Django unchained. You will also see major similarities with Reservoir Dogs, but since they are both great movies and he's only copying himself I don't see a problem with that.As soon as you realize that you are watching a "who-done-it" western you can just sit back and enjoy and watch the characters unfold.The actors all do an amazing job and although not his best... Quentin Tarantino delivers. I gave it a solid 9 out of 10.