Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

A rare and sizable diamond is found by a worker in a warlord's diamond mine. This adds even more turbulence to an already volatile situation as different forces attempt to seize the 'blood diamond.'In a certain sense I found this film to comparable to 'Babel' - it tells s story that reveals an uncomfortable truth about our world, but remains grounded and personal with its perspective. Focusing of a few principle characters - with each actor/actress giving a solid performance - the film gives a really up-close look at a world fueled by greed and filled with violence. There is something rotten in the states of Africa and the 'blood diamond' of the title is practically a classic McGuffin - totally incidental to what is going on. But if people can get so worked up over just one diamond it gives you an idea about why the situation there is what it is - and just how expensive diamonds really are.Also, Leonrado DiCaprio is actually a pretty damn good actor. This year has been exceptional for him with two powerhouse roles - the other being "The Departed" - and his career is now something quite respectable. Jennifer Connelly and Djimon Hounsou provide equally good performances and with the brisk direction and relevant issue this is one of the year's best. --- 9/10Rated R: intense violence, and profanity

I doubt anyone can argue, that this Movie is the greatest one ever made. If there is no better movie ever made I will not be disappointed. More about that later though, one of the movie's strongest aspects, the acting.Before watching this movie I had never heard of Tim Robbins, and after was left wondering why, the way he developed the character of Andrew Dufresne was incredible, why he hasn't been in many, many more big productions.But the real star in this Movie was Morgan Freeman,maybe it was because he's Irish, his role as Red the 'The man who knows how to get things' was incredible. A convicted murderer, and the only guilty man in shawshank really was what made the movie, amongst other things, so good. He would have to be the best narrator EVER!! he makes you feel as though when he speaks, you're him watching the events unfold as they happen from his perspective.The other co-stars all put in great performances, notabley Bob Gunton as the Warden, William Sadler as Heywood a fellow inmate and James Whitmore as Brooks. Clancy Brown did a great job of making you hate his character Captain Hadley, at some parts you just wanted reach through the screen and kill him yourself. And Mark Rolsten as Boggs the gay prisoner, made you shudder.But the highlight of the acting was on the on screen chemistry between Tim Robbins and Morgn Freeman the best male lead duo that I have ever seen, the way they inspire each other and the conversations they share add another dimension to the movie.The plot is good, with the ending coming as a complete surprise to me, probably because i was expecting something a little different to what I had expected, which is what makes this movie brilliant. Frank Darabout has done a great job as Director as he has shown us again later in the Green Mile. I cant believe this film did not perform in the Cinemas or did not win any awards. Words cannot possibley describe in detail just how good this movie is, go and see it for yourself, but be prepared for some real, prison violence. And remember, a good thing never dies.

Where do I start? WANTING IT TO END! This film is definitely David Fincher's worst movie yet. Worse than Alien 3 (Fincher's least favorite, of his works)? Definitely. Some of you, including the person who wrote the plot summary (What are you his mother?) may disagree with me here. So...I give you this rant. His shot's might as well have been hand drawn because the CGI is just plain ridiculous. Jodi Foster does ok but her acting is overshadowed by her Cleavage. Dwight Yoakum's character might as well have been named Larry (everyones favorite "Home Alone" cap-burglar). With his stamina nothing short of kryptonite should be able to hurt him. The pop-culture references in this movie are worse than those written in this humble review. This rant could go on... but why waste the time. Everyone is still going to love this movie, and I can't wait to hear from all the kids at school and as to how "Panic Room" blew their minds.

Well, nothing to say except that I was deeply disturbed by the movie. It is one of a kind, one of some rare experiences you may have seeing somebody's life depicted. A definitely must-see. I can't even describe how I felt seeing it!

Tom Hooper's extraordinarily self-possessed crowd-pleaser conveys by way of true cinematic form the account of a man duty-bound to speak to the world with a speech impediment. It must be excruciating enough for one who stutters to address another individual. To handle a radio microphone and know the British Empire is taking note must be a nightmare. At the time of the titular speech, a quarter of the world's people was in the Empire, and naturally they'd be listening, including Germany, with special interest.Britain was going to war with Germany. King George VI's spectators needed resolve, precision and tenacity, not hesitant trip-overs disrupted with angst-ridden silences. This was a man who never sought to be king. After the death of his father, the throne was to succeed to his brother Edward. But Edward relinquished the throne to marry the woman he loved, and the responsibility fell to Prince Albert, who had grappled with his voice since childhood.Hooper begins this thoroughly pleasurable film with an aesthetically top-notch point-of-view sequence of Albert, struggling to open the British Empire Exhibition in 1925. Before a packed stadium and a radio audience, he clutches in misery to make the words emerge correctly. His father, George V, has forever deemed "Bertie" a cut above his brother, though bewails the establishment of media, which entail a ruler to be seen and heard on broadcast events.The triumph of the film comes, as far as I'm concerned, centrally from invariably being with and inside the king. Sensitively, we devote a vast amount in the character, and that understanding is delicately pushed along by using remarkable visual compositions. Wide lenses are used very close to the actors' faces to exceedingly evoke their and our emotional response, camera movement and lighting makes it persuasive and keeps us betrothed to the fearful ruler. Not only do I honor the audacious framing choices that visually share Bertie's discomforted struggle speaking, but there is also exquisite regeneration of the look of early color stocks.At that 1925 speech, we see Bertie's wife, Elizabeth, her face beset with pity. As it grows apparent that Edward's fixation on Wallis Simpson is incorrigible, she realizes her Bertie may meet more public disgrace. He sees numerous speech therapists, one of whom tries the old marbles-in-the-mouth custom. Nothing works, and then she finds an unsuccessful Australian actor named Lionel Logue, who has set up a speech therapy practice.Logue doesn't realize initially who is referring to him. And one of the focuses of the film is Logue's way of behaving toward crowned heads. He proposes to Albert that they speak in unceremonious terms. Albert has been reared within the majestic vacuum of the monarchy and take offense at such conduct, not because he has an eminent view of himself but because, well, it just isn't proper. But Logue understands that if he is to become the king's counselor, he must first become his acquaintance.This handsomely produced film is abounding in period nuances and fastidious class differences. Director Tom Hooper makes fascinating choices with his locations and visuals. The movie is mainly shot in interiors, and most of those spaces are an impressively rendered composition overlapping the constricted with the expansive. That's extraordinary in historical dramas, which highlight scope and splendor and that. Here we have elongated passageways, a bottomless and tapered master control room for the BBC, rooms that appear markedly geometric.The film mainly interests the actors Colin Firth, reserved and polite, and Geoffrey Rush, generous and outgoing, in psychosomatic labor. Helena Bonham Carter, who can be hardhearted, is here alive with benevolence, discretion and affection for her husband. This is the woman who became the beloved Queen Mother of our time, living to a hundred. As the men have a scuffle of self-control and spirit, she attempts to iron the situation. And in the broader realm, Hitler finds supremacy, war nears, Mrs. Simpson devastates, and the feared day looms when Bertie, as George VI, will have to address the world and wage war.Hooper's handling of that loaded scene is virtuosic. Firth interjects his anxiety and keeps the obligatory, virtually British-patented fortitude in the face of adversity, while his personnel and family are frightened on his behalf as he strides toward a microphone as if were a gas chamber. It's the one scene in the film that must come off, and it does, and its poignant effect is astoundingly deep. Finally, what we have here is a first-class historical drama and a commanding intimate one. And two contraries who stay confidantes for the remainder of their lives.The R rating concerns Logue's use of expletives. It's absolutely incomprehensible. This is an outstanding film for children and teenagers whose parents will blindly follow that they should forbid their kids from seeing it and let them see RED and the Twilight saga instead.While I'm raving, I might as well add that I think it terribly sad to find criticism of Danny Cohen's cinematography on message boards on grounds that it doesn't follow basic rules of composition. It's not common to find a film that merges all aspects of the world it creates into such a seamlessly layered multi-faceted visual experience. Quite close to every film we see is either shot in wides for epic scope and majesty or from the small-scale voyeuristic perspective, and even on the rare occasion that a film does both, it's at any given moment doing either one or the other. By that token, one might go as far as to say that most films fail to capture half of the story they depict! That is, by the standards set by this transcendent picture.

Quite, frankly, one of the best films I've ever seen. These days I shy away from any kind of violence in movies .... I hate violence in films. There's quite enough in the real world. So, I subsist on a light diet of children's films, costume dramas, rom-coms, historical adaptations of the classics, and SF. But the violence in the Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the few films where the distressing violence, cruelty and torture really is justified. It is a brilliant allegory of a modern, technocratic, dystopian society where those in control of all the resources keep ordinary people starving, living in fear, at each other's throats, and diverted by a powerful propaganda machine which contains a modern-day parallel of the Roman Gladiators: The Hunger Games. It is also a story of how even the most powerful regimes, based on inequality and a reign of terror will eventually drive even the weakest, disenfranchised citizenry to revolution. I enjoyed the first movie, but Catching Fire is .... stupendous.

I first saw this film in my art class over the course of several days. When I heard we were to be watching a silent film, I was fairly skeptical. I'd seen "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", which I did not like, as well as "Nosferatu" which I didn't like all that much either. I was incredibly surprised to enjoy the film so thoroughly.The acting was absolutely amazing. There were distinct changes in the cast throughout the film, particularly Brigitte Helm's portrayal of the Machine Man versus Maria. Every time I saw her on stage as the Machine Man I was absolutely chilled to the bone. She conveyed both of the characters so uniquely and seamlessly that I can now only envy her amazing talent.The direction was superb, every scene, every cut, was so utterly perfect. You could stop the film at any time and have a perfectly composed picture. The balance of lights and darks were perfect, especially when Maria was running through the catacombs. The shots were hard, being in such limited light, but they were pulled off and looked amazingly natural.As to the plot line, very very unique- if simple. However, simple plot lines are often the ones that influence the watcher the most. At no time did I find myself bored or listless. However- for those who cannot seem to appreciate the beauty of simplicity and need an action sequence blaring in your face every five minutes- this is not the film for you.Now as to the sets, music, and ensemble. The sets were amazing, following the visions of German Impressionists of that time- one of my favorite facets of old German films. The sheer scale of the sets, and variety of them, was stunning. I also believe that the music, contrary to popular belief, was very well suited to the film and moved me through the movie as fluidly as the acting and editing. The ensemble cast was amazing as well, not to mention the huge size of it- impressive even by today's standards. The choices of characterization, particularly the workers, were spot on. The workers' hobbled walk was perfect and gave me chills every time I saw it.All in all, an remarkable film that I could watch over and over again and see new things every time. For those of you who don't like the film because of its simplicity, its length, its lack of color, and its lack of talking- I beg you to reconsider. 10 out of 10

This is one of the only 2 movies I have ever walked out of the cinema part way through.The last movie I saw staring Sacha Baron Cohen was "Hugo" which was one of the 5 best movies I have ever seen in my life.I wasn't expecting "The Doctator" to be as good as Hugo, but I was expecting it to at least be reasonable quality and funny. I'm afraid I was sorely disappointed on both counts.There were very few funny moments. The quality of acting, especially from Sacha Baron Cohen (who plays the lead character) is horrendously poor.The main character is pathetically shallow and poorly thought through, and behaves in ways which are inexplicable throughout the movie.The whole plot seems to have been thrown together very quickly and with little thought.It's a shame because I know Sacha Baron Cohen can do much better than this, and the idea of a vicious dictator finding himself having to interact with ordinary Americans has the potential to make a very very funny movie. Unfortunately this potential has gone completely unfulfilled.Having said all this, if you liked "Borat" you might well like "The Dictator".

The Brady Bunch Movie meets the Matrix you say? That's not right is it? Err, yes it is.Charlie's Angels did something that few movies ever do for me anymore, it actually surprised me by being much better than I expected. I expected absolute big budget blah and was just crossing my fingers that Bill Murray would be funny. While the film could have used more Bill Murray I was blown away by the way the film was put together. It is still big budget summer eye candy flick (err, its october) but it manages to be FUN which is something that a lot of the so-called summer blockbusters this year have forgotten to be.The film clear mocks itself and the original series while timing their action sequences to a rockin' (and quirky-but in a good way) soundtrack while playing out Matrix-like visuals. What results is a movie that is absolutely wonderful for just kicking back, laughing, saying "cool" every once in awhile, oh and of course gawking at the three main stars. With a host of complementary side characters (Crispin Glover a.k.a. George McFly is particularly cool) that add to the zaniness of this universe that the film has created, you will definitely never once get bored or for that matter stop to think about the intricacies of the plot or characters. But hell, you wont care. It doesnt slow down enough for you to think how impossible some of it is, but who cares?Unless you only like your movies slow, moody, and dark, you should go off and see these chicks kick some ass crack some jokes and beat up George McFly in super-slo-mo.

When I talk about "Full metal Jacket", I guess I should clarify something. It perhaps isn't the best war movie ever made. Certainly, if you're looking for combat realism, Platoon is the sure bet. I think that it is the best movie about war (in general)ever made. I put it above other war movies because of its skill in delivering an anti-war message; it never presents any redeming qualities about war. In this film, war is just wrong, and there is nothing glorious or glamourous about it.Most war movies are anti-war in a sense, but a great many of them view war as necessary or unescapable, and those that go and fight in wars are glorified as heroes (patriots to their country). Heck, they fought for their country, right??? This is very apparent in films like "Saving Private Ryan". This is one of the major problems that I feel the film has. It sends a contradictory message. On the one hand, it illustrates in gruesome detail how horrible it is to be in battle, but yet at the same time there are a number of times where the American Flag is plastered across the entire screen. The movie redeems itself so that audience members come out of the theater feeling comfortable. If a movie is to be a truly anti-war film, then people should not leave the theater feeling happy. Don't get me wrong, I liked "SPR" even though I am not am not a Spielberg fan, but I honestly think that it would have been more effective if it had been done as a documentary only showing the first half an hour. I have never been anywhere near a war, but in my opinion the opening sequence of "SPR" looks pretty real. This sense of 'redemption' does not exist in "Full Metal Jacket"; its as anti-war as anti-war movies get, and for that I respect it greatly.I also enjoyed the opening sequence of the soldiers being trained, by Sgt Hartman (Lee Ermey). This portrays the training process of marines as raw exploitation of human beings. These men have almost every aspect of their humanity torn away from them. Essentially, they become machines, killing machines. Numerous times in the film it is stated that the marines want"killers". When Private Joker (Mattew Modine) says that he wants to go into military journalism, Hartman's response is "you're not a writer, you're a killer!"I have said that "FMJ" is the best movie about war in general. Films like "Platoon" or "SPR" are specific to certain wars, being WWII or Vietnam. "FMJ" is set in Vietnam, but Kubrick's ideas about war can be applied to war in general. That is where I feel that the true genius of this film lies. Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" can also be seen in this respect.

The Dukes of Hazzard is an atrocious movie. The persons responsible display a contempt for the source material that verges on spite. Okay, the original TV series wasn't exactly intellectually profound, but it was still good, clean fun and is fondly remembered. Why then turn it into a charmless, mean-spirited farrago like this? The filmmakers here don't even pretend to care about the original TV series or its fans and make no attempt to pander to them. Instead they are content to rub the audience's nose right in it: in place of wayward country boys whose hearts are in the right place, the Dukes here are a pair of backwoods sociopaths bent on destruction and carnage. The same goes for Daisy: in place of a cornfed, wholesome beauty, we have a flint-hearted bimbo, portrayed by a dead-eyed dullard whose star-power would be eclipsed by a can of pilchards.The whole enterprise reeks of contempt for its audience: time and again the conventions of the original series are unsubtly 'subverted'. One can almost hear the screenwriters giggling over their double mocha lattes: yes, let's show them what a stupid, reactionary pair of dumb-ass Southern punks those Duke boys really are.Lynda Carter seems thoroughly embarrassed by her participation, as well she should be, and Burt Reynolds phones in his performance to such an extent that you almost expect to hear a dial tone.Shameful and pathetic. 1/ 10

I have many problems with this movie. One, the dialog. Even though it was supposed to make it unique, having Shakespearian dialog during the more serious scenes completely ruins the feel of it, as I was finding myself laughing when they were trying to be serious, but were failing miserably when you had these supposedly 'hip' people speaking as if they were from the 1500's. The producers should have modernized the dialog, and expanded on it, like in the video game industry, when translating from Japanese to English. Add pop culture references, and try to connect with the audiences, don't make what is one of the masterpieces of English literature turn into this pile of Garbage. Secondly, the cinematography was awful. Usually you can see the differences between movies made in the 1960's and 1990's, but when I saw the 60's version, it came out looking as if it was recently made, not made 40 years ago.

Very good show of roller-coaster riding aviation and muffin puffin drug humour.especially one scene with tom cruise running along with a cloud of ''flee powder'' are extremely fun. i like the sound and light settings in this movie.very nice choice of music,though a little bit chaotic and shallow script to follow. it is a hasty lesson of American hidden ''red fear'' policy era, so i feel that the basic knowledge of the real history is beneficiary to enjoy this movie..too much money to hide to make it a 10'er. this is a likable edition of tom cruise,and the movie are within the range of my top 250 movies

I know many people wont agree but this stunning engaging film with a heart rendering story with has emotion is my film of the year even though were barely through the year this film will have you on the edge wondering what will happen next this film looks like New York in I am legend with CGI so good its so much better this film explores families whether its human or animal issues and loyalties than rise that it blows it out of the water were the last film left them the apes were going in to the woods as we left them it takes place 10 years after Caesar is at peace with a baby on the way with most of the humans wiped out some of the apes mistrust humans and look for war and to challenge Caesar leadership with his son Koba who hates humans and looks to cause havoc with humans with the living in walled community in fear of apes they go looking to start up the power station thus coming into contact with the apes the dark moody 3d film is so engaging story so good that that when there is a twist in this film that I wont give away that when the apes go in search of weapon to challenge the humans they come in all guns blazing in the walled area in a stunning San Francisco bleak landscape there are undercurrent story of people of conflict of wars that Caesar has a fight witch is stunning with koba that is the nearly the highlight of this amazing film were Caesar finds hope in some humans but who would of thought when the last film was that this a epic battle is on there hands for the apes and humans would lead into another as the end suggest in this film who will Caesar doesn't want this but humans have forced this on him and a small cameo from someone who would have this is film of the year 9/10 of ten as 3d is good but should have been better looking forward to the next as war is coming on the names of the 2 films with rise and dawn I wonder with the way the end went would it be called fall of planet of the apes or escape from planet of the apes lets see they have created the end were next one will be highly anticipated and this film was overly long just over 2 hours

After his breakthrough movie "Above the law" which was a nice action flick Seagal made a trio of bad (at least for me) movies : "Hard to kill" , "Marked for death" and "Out for justice". The production values of those products were unimpressive (they looked like a TV movies) and they all felt like one and the same movie thanks to the lazy screenplays. Thankfully Andrew Davis ( director of "Above the law") came to save Seagal career and together they made "Under siege" – easily Seagal's best movie to date.The production values are good . It's one of few Segal's big budget movies ( along with "On deadly ground", "Under siege 2 " , "Executive decision" and "Exit wounds"). While the big budget doesn't automatically mean good movie it allows the viewer to feel a touch of epic cinema. In terms of story there's nothing original here . It's another "Die hard" clone , this time on battleship. However it's one of the best "Die hard" clones out there . While the story here is quite predictable (because it was done to death before and after this movie ) it's still entertaining. The writer puts quite a lot of humor and irony into this movie. Steven Seagal is Casey Ryback an ex-Navy Seal who is on board as the captains personal cook. He is the only person who can stop terrorists from using the nuclear weapons. Sounds funny ? Yes , and it could easily turn into unintentional autoparody of itself (like Van Damme's awful "Sudden death") . Thankfully "Under siege" neither treats itself too seriously or too silly.Steven Seagal is no actor , but he is watchable here. Seagal looks relaxed here , often smiles and has some nice one-liners . Along with "Above the law" this is his best performance. The movie gives him female sidekick played by Erika Eleniak . She looks great (we get a chance to see her breasts) and gives a decent performance. Interesting thing – she actually was Playboy Playmate of the Month for July 1989 just as the movie says. Another interesting thing – Seagal doesn't defeat the bad guys all alone. He needs help from few other people and that was a refreshing thing to see.The show however belongs to two veteran actors : Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") and Gary Busey ("Lethal weapon"). They play villains and they are obviously the most colorful and charismatic characters in the movie. They are little over – the –top , but never overdone it. The action is a high point here. Some Seagal fans might be a little disappointed because it doesn't contain that many aikido moves like his other movies. Still there is enough brutal violence , shootouts , death traps , explosions and a good knife fight to make every action movie junkie happy. The direction by Andrew Davis is top notch . Harrison Ford watched this film while he was deciding whether to take on the lead role in "The Fugitive", which had Davis already set to direct. Ford was greatly impressed by Davis' work here and immediately accepted that role. 9 nine actors from "US" , including Tommy Lee Jones appeared in "TF". The sound is also impressive (2 Oscar nominations). The only bad thing is Gary Chang's bland and completely forgettable score. "Under siege " is the best movie of Steven Seagal. It's a good , fun popcorn movie definitely worth watching. I give it 7/10.

Plot: After a terrorist blows up the Kremlin and winds up with nuclear launch codes, framing the IMF, it's up to Ethan Hunt and his team to not only clear their names, but save the world from potential nuclear war.Worth watching?: I always liked the Mission: Impossible movies before. I didn't think any of them were masterpieces, but hey, they were fun enough to watch, and a good way to take you away for a few hours. Having said that, the trailer for this sucker absolutely blew me away for some reason, so it was with hopes jacked way up that I strolled into the theater to see this one. So was it everything I hoped for? Well, in my book, this movie succeeded and then some! You'll be hooked by the narrative right from frame one, with Brad Bird's masterful direction mostly to thank for that. The story unfolds at an easy pace that makes it an absolute thrill to watch, you can tell with each new scene, they're trying to top the previous one. I've read a lot of reviews saying that the plot is one of the movies weaknesses. I actually thought it was one of this movie's charms! The story had a very retro-James Bond feel to it that really gave it that whole "spy feel", and it worked for me big time! A lot of people also say that the character development is non-existent. Well, I hate to say I disagree, but,villain aside,... I DISAGREE!!! The player's in the house all had their own personal issues that they were dealing with, and they were engaging to say the least. It also helps that all the actors were very credible in their roles, and had great chemistry together. Tom Cruise is very cool and believable as our hero Ethan Hunt, and it is quite nice to see him in action hero mode once again. Paula Patton earns mucho sympathy, while Simon Pegg, as always, is hilarious. And last but not least, Jeremy Renner's character has an aura of mystery about him that leads to an interesting revelation, tying him directly to Ethan.And now to the part everyone who hasn't seen it is wondering about: the action sequences. Well, to understate it, they're exhilarating. Don't hold onto anything during the Burj Khalifa part, because you'll most likely break it from clenching your fists so tight. That scene alone is enough to have you on the edge of your seat, but it's then followed up by the beyond mind-blowing sandstorm chase, which is another definite highlight. The movie manages to retain a sense of excitement throughout it's entire running time, and that is a feat in itself.Mission: Impossible-Ghost protocol is one of the best cinematic treats we've seen in a long, long while. Sure, the villain could have been a tad better (not the actor's fault, he didn't have much to chew on), but on the whole, this is entertainment at it's finest, and it's one you definitely shouldn't miss.

In my opinion this is one of the best King Arthur films I have seen. The movie doesn't mess around with the whole magic part of the tale, and I think it makes the more believable. I was quite disappointed on how they didn't display the Lancelot and Guineviere love. I think that is the best part of the legend. You can tell though that the characters did have some type of a connection towards each other, so that was good. The people who casted the movie did a great job. All of the characters, especially Arthur, really fit the appearance that a lot of people had in mind for them. So I think this movie definitely deserves a 10, because it rocked!

Okay, this movie isn't totally unwatchable, but man alive it comes pretty close.First off, let's talk about what's good with the movie. The story itself, is fairly well put together in the typical superhero origin archetype. A scientist, Dr. Peyton Westlake, has developed a synthetic skin to provide relief to burn victims. When a crime boss trashes his lab and nearly kills him, he's forced to use the skin on himself. Problem is, the skin only holds together at night. When it comes into contact with the light, it will only stay together for 99 minutes.Now for the crap, and boy is there a lot of it. First of all, the whole scene of his lab blowing up could have been done a lot better. Secondly, when he's trying to reconstruct his own face, his computer tells him that he'll have to wait 571 hours (nearly 24 days, for those keeping count). However, when he wants to create a new face to disguise himself as one of the boss's henchmen, it's ready in about 30 minutes. Why the discrepancy? We're never told. Also, it's established early on that the portion of Westlake's spine that controls his sense of touch is severed, since that's the only way for him to avoid a lifetime of serious pain. However, if that's the case, he shouldn't be able to do much of anything with his hands. Don't believe me? Try it sometime. Wait till your hand falls asleep and try to pick up a drinking glass.I could go on about everything wrong with this movie, but I'm starting to run out of room. However, I've made a decision. I'm going to start a YouTube channel devoted to trashing crap movies, and this is going to be tops on the list.

I know there are some of you that did not like this one but in my opinion it was the very best TNG Movie yet! I appreciate the fact that they actually kept the Enterprise in one piece (sorta) this go round. I loved the way the Romulans were used this time. Chalk this one up as the best TNG film yet!

First off, I don't write reviews... Secondly I don't agree in general with 1/10 or 10/10 as either extreme is effectively unattainable in my opinion (what is a "10/10" in the 50's if released in 2k is NOT "10/10" - to be explained later)...I picked out this movie (extended version)one night from a blockbuster, and seem to have vaguely recalled hearing about it. So I popped it in, started watching it, and was soon thereafter asleep.So the next day I looked up the reviews on here, and to my surprise this thing (that quickly put me to sleep) was on the top 250!!! I was shocked. People were comparing it to The Godfather and Goodfellas... OMG...So I sat down a few nights later and decided to re-visit this thing which I thought could not be anywhere near as good as people were saying... To my surprise, things go a lot better after a while... the story just started off too slow.The story was interesting (once it got going), and ultimately the overall story was good.Some of the cinematography was quite good, some was painfully awful... it was as though there were different people controlling/editing the shots at different times.I don't know what was in the original version and the extended cut, however there was too much sex related scenes for my likings. I think sex has its place in movies, it just that this movie had a little too much (or too long), with some scenes on the boarder of turning into a porno. And when I'm watching a gangster/mafia movie, I don't want it to kick into a little porno action, I want to see the stereotypical gangster related things – drug trafficking, extortion, gambling, murder blah blah blah... not, common baby, lets see if you can tell which one of us mobsters had their way with you a while ago by a careful assessment of our 'weapons' while we look on grinning stupidly. Just didn't seem appropriate.I think the acting was top notch - I can't think of a single actor/actress that did a bad job; the flaws are more in the direction the movie was shot/edited.I think if this movie was released in say 1960, it would have gotten an 8/10 from me... but this was 1984, Nineteen EIGHTY-FOUR... post godfather... I find that movies over time end up raising the bar for other movies, and that sloppy cinematography or acting or direction becomes less tolerated - because movie makers should know by now that everything has to be firing on all cylinders to be a top movie (relatively speaking of course).It should have been better.X

Unlike last year, this year didn't have as many good movies as last, but this year is definately not a bad year. Last night (my birthday) I saw "CAST AWAY" and let me start by saying that I expected A LOT, I've known about this movie for a little over a year and I couldn't wait to see it. I thought I may have been dissapointed that it may be too long, or even too boring, but it was far from it.This is a wonderfully created picture, I thought it was done so well on so many levels. Many people I heard were not happy with the ending, but I won't say anything except, I wasn't..thats all I have to say about that (the ending)Like always, Tom Hanks is fabulous in this, not only does the audience feel like they are on the island with him, they feel his emotions, especially in the scenes with Wilson (who deserves an academy award for best supporting object)This movie is defiantely one unforgetable picture and if not number one, one of the top five best movies of the year.Thank You

warning ("spoiler alert" which actually isn't a spoiler but i am just doing this so I wont get black listed!!!!!)now to start off, What I love about this movie is that it skewers conventional thinking in almost every aspect of the film, and does not just skewer it, but it unleashes an entire swath of "that could be possible" type stuff into the films very amazing plot.(warning!!! warning!!! not so much a spoiler alert ahead!)while most people usually find it offensive to kill a head of state, I find it refreshing to see directors who aren't afraid to (go there) sort of speak, but trust me... it goes there pretty well! wink" wink"the movie itself is filled with an elaborate (but easy to follow) story-line, with uncanny plot twists, and unexpected you kinda understand but kinda hate him bad guys. kinsmen will remain in my heart one of the best (and most unapologetic) spy films I have ever seen. (just a heads up!) if you are in any ways biased towards politics of conservative, liberal, progressive, green, republican, or any kind of "ends justify the means" Marxist kinda politics, this movie isn't for you. so my word of advice is to pretend for about 2 hours that your not associated with any politics what so ever and enjoy the film.

I have seen most of Benigni movies available in US. Personally, I like Benigni. But comparing him with Chaplin is way too much.Life is beautiful is an over-hyped movie and most likely will be remembered as a controversial movie like the Truman Show. The movie quickly lost me with its unrealistic style and rigid jokes. No offence to lovers of this movie. But for a real classic, you'd better check the AFI100 movies.

This is a well crafted movie with strong performances by its leads, Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. But after having read some of the comments on it I have to wonder how accurate it is in terms of depicting Navy SEAL Chris Kyle himself. The trouble is if it isn't accurate it starts smelling like propaganda and a pointless whitewash. For example, as in Stalingrad, there is a kind of competition and duel between Kyle and an enemy sniper but supposedly that's not what really happened.Cooper is so deeply invested in the role you think it must be because he's honoring someone he admires. You never get the feel he was just doing it to get an award. I've heard the sniper was not that troubled about killing women and children who posed a threat to the troops he was watching over so I'm left wondering. I have to admit in the end I find the cold killer version of Chris Kyle more plausible than the driven but understanding guy shown in the movie. But I'll have to read much more than I have to feel certain about it.Still it's a very well made film. I particularly liked how beautifully put together the battle scenes were. The sound of the rounds hitting all around was just right, I think. I've heard nothing is as chaotic and ugly as real war so it's a gift to have it sorted out for you by an intelligent director with a camera. You do get the feeling a lot of surviving is pure luck.As between 'Fury' and 'American Sniper' both make you feel the tension of having to perform in a deadly situation though I'd give a small edge to 'Fury' though that's more directly a heroic tale. It's a little telling that director Eastwood found more paydirt in the battle scenes than in the sniper scenes. But being a sniper must not be that satisfying a job, I think, no matter how many lives you might save. And Miller and Cooper do a good job of depicting the strains on their marriage. I'm guessing it was those scenes that kept my wife happy as she usually hates war movies.

One basic flaw of this otherwise good film was the way the characters were written. At the beginning, when their car breaks down, these 3 employees of NASA sound like they're coming out of "Gone With the Wind," and I expected to hear any minute that they're not burping babies.Octavia Spencer received a supporting Oscar nomination for her performance as the NASA expert in computers denied a supervisory position because of race. Supporting division? She was in nearly every scene.The film brought out that even NASA was a victim of racial bias with denying promotions, separate bathroom facilities and creating a hostile and totally separate of space for its African American employees.Jim Parsons, as a rather bigoted assistant to Kevin Costner, was very good and shows his versatility as an actor.Taranji P. Henson is marvelous as the calculator, a brilliant woman who had to run back and forth to use a segregated bathroom.Kevin Costner was appealing as the hard-nosed supervisor who becomes sympathetic to his brilliant African American employee. His removing the separate bathroom signs was memorable in the picture.Kirsten Dunst, as Mrs. Mitchell, succeeds in giving the feeling that she is a racist by her attitude, only to be accepting by film's end.

There's only two movies out that i absolutely HATE, and this is number 1! The other is dark water which was basically a remake of The Ring. Anyways, i wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but i had seen everything else that was out at the time. I wish i would have seen dark water instead! The plot line was good, but they ruined the movie by putting in the most random, pointless scenes out of all different fairytails. I'm pained right now just to think back to when i saw it. It was my last day of summer an frankly, i would have rather been at school! Spare yourself the time and keep your respect for movies. Don't see this!

Most will disagree, but I think that this was the funniest movie ever. Those others, however, will not dislike it, they will also think it's funny, but I'm sure there are also many out there who agree with my enthusiasm. It was great to see Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller on screen together. Never before have I laughed so hard at a movie. I was literally falling out of my chair and holding my chest because it was in pain from laughing so much. Go see it. You will be overflowing with laughter

I love this movie, and still watch it all the time! I was so stoked when I found out that one of my all time favorite bands, New Found Glory remade the best song (and most memorable one) on the soundtrack, "Kiss Me"! I really love their version of it and cant wait for their new cd From the Screen to Your Stereo Part 2! So yeah check out their myspace to hear it for free, I know you'll love it too! Actually I am gonna go watch it again right now, I love a good romance and this is totally an awesome one that I can really relate to! I think most of the kids in our generation can agree with that so yeah what are you doin go watch and listen!

If you want to give an audience emotional access to your characters, take a lesson from this movie. Oh Dae-Su is probably one of the most pitiable characters in all of cinema, but no less cool for it. We see him go through first physical, then mental, then emotional suffering while also seeing some of the small joys and successes that come along the way. I wouldn't say he's a terribly complex character, but he is a human character with a lot of layers that people can relate to. I liked the theme of him having to pay for the sins of his past especially because it strengthened his relationship with the villain Lee Woo-Jin. Both of them are playing the revenge game with each other, which puts them on level ground. The difference between them is that Lee Woo-Jin knows all the facts and is deliberately going after Oh Dae-Su. Lee Woo-Jin's rationale for why Oh Dae-Su deserved such harsh punishment seemed extreme and unfair to me, but I could see that he believed in it on a level of principal not just emotion. It definitely made for a better conflict between the two of them, particularly in the climatic scene.To say that I enjoyed watching it might not be true, but there is no doubt that I was more engaged with this movie than the vast majority of movies I've seen. The action and graphic scenes in this movie was so much more personal than in most action movies. I don't react when I see someone on screen get shot unless it's a shocking moment. I'm sure getting shot hurts, but when I saw the bugs crawling through Oh Dae-Su's skin and when he cut out his own tongue, I physically cringed. Similarly, the reveal at the end that Mi-do is Oh Dae-Su's daughter is more shocking than a lot of twist endings because we as the audience are revolted by the fact just like Oh Dae-Su is. Not as intensely for sure, but it's still shocking and powerful, particularly because of the visual means by which it is shown.In addition to being an emotional and interesting film, Oldboy also has some cool cinematic touches to it. The visual style is striking and distinct, which makes the movie more engaging to watch. The action sequences are fantastic because Oh Dae-Su is by no means invincible, which makes it all the more fun to see him defeat his many adversaries. Sure, watching Jason Bourne type heroes take out a bunch of soldiers or whatever is fun in its own way, but it's so much more interesting when there are real stakes like there are in this movie. Additionally, we get some pretty good voice-overs from our protagonist. My favorite voice over line was, "Can ten years' worth of imaginary training be put to use? Apparently it can."This is definitely a gritty and violent movie that will make you cringe physically and mentally at multiple points. I personally like movies like that, but I know some people don't so be warned. One could argue that it's a standard revenge tale, which may be true, but it at least brings the revenge tale near to its fullest potential. It's nothing that holds any deep lessons, though it does have some deep lines. I wouldn't say that it's a must see, but it's definitely worth seeing if your a fan of movies in general. Overall Rating: 8.2/10

This film although meets the criteria for at least an enjoyable movie; if not a little long has one big flaw, which in my opinion ruins the film, and that is how Jaden plays the character with too much confidence.The basis of this film should be about a personal journey, a child who's lack of confidence allows him to be pushed around and left unnoticed to most others. Learning Karate should be a means to building the characters confidence and be seen as an equal with the others. However what we have is your stereotypical black kid who is over confident and has too many social skills. Jadens character has no problems standing up for himself, or getting the girl its these skills that actually get him in trouble. The problem I have is that a main character like this has no room for development. I believe its harder to identify with a person who has no real issues bar being cocky and annoying others, which therefore makes him less likable. This is not necessarily a critique of Jadens acting, but maybe the directors inability to not stereotype a black person.I will still give this film a 6 because although I dislike the main character, I believe the supporting cast is still pretty good and very interesting to see Jackie Chan in a non comedy role. As for the fighting over the top but I think most will appreciate its style it's not going to win any awards, but it will still keep people entertained. To push it to a higher rating would mean having some originality or an all-round solid cast which it doesn't.So to summarise a solid 6/10 There's enough to stop you from nodding off and feel relatively entertained, however I think most people will find Dre (Jaden Smith) very annoying.

Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss and Lorraine Gary star in Steven Spielberg's 1975 thriller based on the novel. This takes place on a resort island, Amity and begins with a young girl falling victim to a great white killer shark. Soon, the shark kills again and starts terrorizing the residents on the beaches. Police chief, Martin Brody (Scheider) tries to keep them out of the water and stop the shark with help from a fisherman, Quint (Shaw) and marine biologist, Matt Hooper (Dreyfuss). Gary plays Martin's wife, Ellen who is also the mother of their 2 children. This classic paved the way for many killer shark/creatures in the water imitations. It's definitely one of Spielberg's best with a great cast and unforgettable score by John Williams that I recommend.

Raiders of the lost Ark is, to me, where the minds and hands of Spielberg, Lucas and Kasdan peaked, and never quite succeeded to get even close to this high ever again. The movie simply hits every point, the characters are fully developed (for an adventure movie of course, it's no cinéma vérité), the plot is interesting and the visual effects are just the best you could get back then. Not to speak about the actors, Ford is just perfect as Indiana Jones (and that's why he will always be Indy for the rest of his career), Karen Allen was a strong actress and the supporting roles really work as friends or baddies. Comparisions with the two sequels are hard, this one is way too much better filmed, written and acted. The latest, useless installment is not even a challenge to me, being the lowest point of the Lucas-Spielberg franchise, and the gravestone of the great late Indy character. In the end, even if you don't like the genre this film is good entertainment for two hours.

I remember seeing a trailer for "Room" months back in 2015 and being almost entirely mystified; it looked like a strange, almost ethereal mix of drama and science-fiction that even the trailer couldn't adequately communicate. Not until seeing it, I realized that this is a film that isn't easy to summarize in a brief two minute trailer, and I'll undoubtedly struggle to illustrate the film's genius with its review. This is the kind of film one needs to experience and feel; a film where words often feel either exaggerating or shortchanging in attempting to illustrate the film's emotional power and exceptional narrative.Simply put, "Room" is the emotional movie-going experience of the season. A deeply moving film that combines the aforementioned genres of drama and science-fiction, "Room" is the kind of film that hits you with its most powerful shot after you walk out of the theater or turn off the TV. It lingers in your mind and the characters, their motivations, their conversations, their struggles, and their thoughts don't escape you, unlike most dramas, where character names are probably not even remembered by most following the end credits.The film opens with a young mother named Joy (Brie Larson) and her small child named Jack (Jacob Tremblay), who live their life in an enclosed garden shed of about one-hundred square feet and their only available sunlight is a skylight. They eat, sleep, bathe, and cook in there, and for Jack, it's the only life he has come to know. At first, their routine actions and close relationship lead one to believe that they've chosen this life in order to free themselves from the constraints of society. However, we see the horror of their reality soon enough.Seven years ago, Joy was tricked and kidnapped by a man known as "Old Nick" (Sean Bridgers), who raped her and had her give birth to Jack. Since then, she has lived inside this closed space; it isn't until their escape-plan is successful that Joy goes back to her mother and father and Jack finally experiences the outside world. Previously, Jack believed, largely in part of his mother, who tried to make their life seem a lot less hellish, that outside of the four walls of "room," as they referred to it, was outer space. The people on TV were just flat, and nothing else besides them and Old Nick existed.Upon finally escaping and trying to return to a life that seems brand new to them, Joy struggles to get Jack to assimilate to the world. His entire life was predicated upon just him and his "Ma," as he was largely kept hidden in the closet whenever Old Nick would come pay them a visit. Now, he must be socialized into the world at age five, and learn that there is not only a larger life, but a larger world outside of "room." His mother, on the other hand, must grapple with her demons that have haunted her since she was captured.If you look at "Room" from the perspective of Joy, you find a drama about being re-socialized into the world after living your entire life in captivity. It's a familiar story, but one that is truly sad and potent, and Brie Larson brings such life and emotion to the role for a woman so young (her precocious acting reminds me quite a bit of Jennifer Lawrence). However, if you look at the film through Jack's perspective, you see a film that plays with the realm of science-fiction. While nothing about "Room" deals with supernatural or "the unknown" in a grandiose sense, we do have a character who has never experienced life first-hand and sees everything around him not only as foreign but, for lack of a better term, alien.This results in a film that's very lucid and ethereal, largely in part because of Lenny Abrahamson's (who directed 2014's "Frank," a strong film dealing with mental illness) unique direction and cinematographer Danny Cohen's dreamlike grasp on reality. These beautiful and immersive aesthetic choices make the world and everything we take for granted and overlook on a daily basis look as if it's an unearthly object, with extreme close-ups and high-contrast depictions employed by Abrahamson."Room" is a film largely bent on repetition; everything from Joy and Jack's daily actions in "room," Jack's attempts to socialize with other adults, Joy's attempt to come to terms with returning to her old life, and more are all showcased as recurring events in the film. This slowburn narrative tactic allows character motivations and interest to rise and boil accordingly, creating a film that turns impacting and even emotional when bigger, more elaborate events occur (the truck scene may be one of the best sequences I've seen in film last year). With all that and more considered, "Room" is a wonderful treat of a film; one that will hit everyone differently in a sense that it's not a matter of if it will resonate with you but how it will eventually manage to do so.

Martin Riggs finally meets his match in the form of Lorna Cole, a beautiful but tough policewoman.Together with Murtaugh, the three attempt to expose a crooked former policeman and his huge arms racket.Crooked cop Jack Travis thwarts them at every turn, mainly by killing anyone who is about to talk.Murtaugh has personal problems of his own as his family are brought into the equation...The third time seems a little tame compared to the other two outings, Riggs isn't the dark character that he was, he is more of the comedian in this, waiting to make a one liner or eat a dog biscuit.Murtaugh on the other hand has the majority of the narrative. He is close to retirement and while the film does touch on age and what he will do when he finishes, it never really delves into the problem.The same goes for the sub-plot of Murtaugh killing his sons friend, he gets drunk, has an argument with Riggs and drops a lot of F-bombs, it beats counselling I guess.Plot wise, it's non existent, the bad guys go around with bullets with that look like lipstick and thats about it.The action scenes are good, but a little more comic book than usual.But this is Lethal Weapon and one cannot deny that the film is entertaining and very well produced.

I am a fan of Denzel Washington. I am a fan of Clive Owen. I am a fan of Jodie Foster. So why wouldn't I like this movie? First of all, it is horribly predictable. You can guess plot twists thirty minutes before they happen. Second, the acting is terrible. Denzel Washington has no facial expressions or vocal tones to speak of in this movie. Thirdly, the dialog is terrible. It is mundane, corny, and sounds awful. Fourth, it is boring. Nothing interesting happens until the final twenty minutes. Fifth and final, it is just plain stupid.Clive Owen is the only likable character and he is the villain and while he talks a lot, he rarely says anything that adds to the plot.Maybe this is a movie you need to see multiple times, but quite honestly, I doubt anyone has the patience to see it repeatedly.

I went into viewing this with no expectations having not read the book so I like to think I was unbiased. What a total disappointment on every level. This movie is a turd.And Hello??!! Does anyone else see the obvious references to 9 1/2 Weeks? Which after just re-watching 9 1/2 weeks I can say is so much better in every sense and still holds up after all these years.Ugh 50 Shades.....want my time back!!OK so I need to write a minimum of 10 lines to post this review. SKIP this movie. Horrible dialog, directing, acting, plot (or lack of). Awful soundtrack. HATED the ending.

And the winner is…"Silver Linings Playbook!" Let me tell you why…the stars could be aligned and by coincidence (NOT!) the film will finally role out in wide release this weekend after a run of building, building, and not quite yet, building to NOW!Growing up my childhood idols were Muhammed Ali and Pete Rose (Same age btw as my dad…) and at 46 my idol is the legendary film conquistador Mr. Harvey Weinstein; he loves film like fat kids love cake & ice cream and his track record of acquiring the right film at the right time is beyond legendary. The most appreciative reaction in the foreign film category this morning was the announcement of The Weinstein Company's recent acquisition (immediately after its screening at AFI in November…) Norway's "Kon-Tiki." They were denied a double nomination with the remarkably inexplicable (but, this is the Academy we're talking about…) slight of "The Intouchables" a popular and universally loved tale of both ends of the financial spectrum. But along comes "Silver Linings Playbook" and it's Harvey magic time! The film received the Grand Slam of nominations (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Actress,) making it the first film to do so since 1981's "Reds."Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Jackie Weaver and David O. Russell all signed up long ago with the game plan being be the underdog. A film not just chock full of stars but of "actors" and some of the best in the business at that and if you combined the receipts of Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, and Chris Tucker you'd have people in the seats because this trifecta of the future paired with the anchors of DeNiro and Weaver will do more for the veteran duo than vice-versa.Solid formula and TWC strategy and boom! Eight nominations; for a comedy? A drama? A dramedy? No, eight nominations for the best winnable TWC type film. Herr Weinstein spun his magic for "Shakespeare in Love" (Directed by John Madden who's latest project "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" was snubbed loudly today) and that film beat "Saving Private Ryan" for Best Picture in 1998, remember? Was it a comedy? A drama? A dramedy? No, it was the foundation for a slew of Oscars yet to come and a recipe no one else has been able to master. The film is directed by David O. Russell and has been nominated to the big dance his last two times out with 2010's "The Fighter" and today for "SLP" and like "The Fighter" his cast was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and Actor and had wins for both Melissa Leo (defeating fellow cast mate Amy Adams) and Christian Bale. So, TWC gets to work their magic because no major blockbusters stand in their way. They can manipulate in a Tom Sawyer kind of way convincing a movie with 5 A-Listers is the underdog film and should be considered for Best Picture and hopefully somewhere in the Amblin Entertainment/Dreamworks office someone in their machine will work day and night for the next six weeks to not let a repeat of 1998 happen to "Lincoln" what "Shakespeare in Love" did to "Saving Private Ryan;" and I think King Harvey has Mr. Spielberg right where he wants him; Again!Peter Santana

This beautiful nightmare truly deserves recognition. It really brings the sympathy in you for Nina's struggles and stress she was being put through. This movie is astonishing and Natalie Portman earned her Academy Award for the Black Swan. From pain to romanticism, the movie throughout caught my attention and the cast was chosen very well. This movie is a movie that always needs a second watch to fully understand the concept of the story and events taken place, especially considering how dark and thrilling this movie is. This is by far my favourite drama genre movie, it was definitely worth a watch. Darren Aronofsky did an excellent job on Black Swan.

I had really big expectations for this movie. A number of good (if not very good) actors, a plot revolving around a series of heists, and an impressive trailer meant that I started watching it knowing that no matter what, I wouldn't leave disappointed... ... and I was wrong. I won't get too far into details, but this movie has many wrongs. First of all, though the actors are all pretty good (I liked Zombieland and The Social Network a lot, and am usually not disappointed by Morgan Freeman), they only play themselves. Jesse Eisenberg is a stereotypical pretentious-yet-unsure genius, Melanie Laurent a Frenchwoman with secrets, Morgan Freeman is the old-wise-dog, you get the idea. This creates two problems. The first is that this make it very hard to bond with the characters, but the biggest problem is the other one: the actors never actually play together. It's like seeing several one-man-shows mixed together.Then there's the plot. I promised IMDb I wouldn't include spoilers, and I won't, but let's say that in addition to chasm-sized plot holes, it appears that whenever the storyline seems stuck, we get a one-liner from an actor, dramatic music, and suddenly the plot has changed and the intrigue is back on the move. This would be disappointing if used once, and it just gets annoying when used multiple times. Probably to cover the fact that the plot is indeed not very good. I can see what Leterrier was trying to achieve by giving the movie its fast pace, but this also just leaves the impression that he's actually trying to confuse us so we don't see the movie's lack of actual interest. I'll give it 5/10 stars for its overall slick visuals and because it still didn't bore me enough that I wouldn't get to the -below average- ending. But you should use your time on something better than this, and keep it for that winter afternoon when you'll be home, sick, and won't know what do to.

Perks of Being a Wallflower has been getting rave reviews and lots of buzz since its release. The genre of youth trying to find themselves is tricky as it can be pretty generic, horribly bad or something great, but it depends on a great story and a cast to carry it in the right direction. This film sports a great cast with Logan Lerman of the Percy Jackson films, Ezra Miller of We Need To Talk About Kevin, and Emma Watson from the Harry Potter franchise, but does it live up to the hype? The Perks of Being A Wallflower follows a young man coping with mental illness, first love, and personal tragedy while trying to step out of the shadows to find a group he can belong too. When he is taken under the wing two seniors his life makes a dramatic turn into the real world. Not only does this film live up to the hype it goes above and beyond it. Unlike most coming of age films, this one has depth to it that was really unexpected. This young cast delivers brilliant performances and has great chemistry together creating a memorable and emotionally charged film about real life instead of the normal up beat imaginary world of Hollywood. Watson steps out of the shadows of the Harry Potter films as not only a beautiful woman, but as a great actress that is sure to continue to light the industry on fire. Lerman and Miller take on their characters with the tortured personalities that push them to the forefront of this film giving it that dark yet sometime light tone that it needs. At first this film feels like your average teen drama, but takes some pretty unexpected dark twists and turns through these characters lives that will surely tug at your emotions on every level. In addition to the great story and brilliant performances all around, the visual style of this film adds to the overall ambiance of the characters themselves and the journey they are on.Besides the great leads, this film also sports a great supporting cast including Paul Rudd, Tom Savini, Dylan McDermott, and Kate Walsh. This is one of those films that while it garnered well deserved praise, still didn't get the credit it deserved. This is one that should have gotten a wider release and recognition for everyone involved. If you haven't seen this film you need to check it out as soon as you can. There is something for every person here and a message of growth and struggle that needs to be heard.

This is an amazing film which kept me gripped from start to finish. I suppose the backlash from the critics was expected, I remember the same thing happening to Gladiator. Critics don't warm to epics made after the 1980's. Well I have little respect for them anyway. This movie is gripping from start to finish and I have the upmost respect for Brad Pitt who gives a powerhouse of a perfomance. A Lot of credit goes out to Wolfgang Peterson. This film is action non stop and exhilarating viewing. The action is breathtaking and I believe the battle scenes top even the Lord of the Rings trilogys. There is also tremendous support from Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole and Sean Bean. Strongest of recommendations.

I couldn't disagree more with the above review. I found this a torturous and ultimately awful film. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman delivers yet another outstanding performance as does Amy Adams. However, Phoenix, an incredible actor, I felt over-acted and it wasn't until the final scene that I felt any compassion for him. Why he was traumatised was not clearly explained, and his posturing and mumbling made much of the dialogue incomprehensible. Furthermore, the soundtrack was not only invasive but it sounded like nails being scraped down a blackboard. I was so looking forward to this film as the subject matter, the cast and director are all brilliant, so for the two hours that I uncomfortably endured the movie, hoping for something to give it credit was not delivered. What a shame. On the plus side, it gave me an insight into the period when enigmatic men were able to capture the hearts and minds of those who were attracted to The Master and his procedures.

I've seen better film on teeth. I was subjected to the dreck recently while hanging without friends and while I can typically enjoy most anything if treated as camp or kitsch, that proved daunting. This movie is unbelievably lunkheaded, rife with insipid dialogue, a kindergarten worldview - does anyone out there still believe that it isn't morally bankrupt to revel in glorifying war? - and an incredibly annoying cast of the worst scenery-chewers from the ranks of Young Hollywood. And the special effects rank with 'Battlestar Gallactica."As bad, offensive movies go, this is even worse than being subjected to the 'The Replacements' on a long-distance bus trip. At least here I had the option of slipping out for some air, thus relieving me of having to watch the final 40 minutes or so... nevertheless, when I meet my Maker, I expect to be sent to Purgatory to make up for the ~85 minutes I spent watching this... ah, maybe I'm just bitter because Denise Richards is in this movie, but ISN'T in the totally gratuitous coed shower scene.

Election is a very difficult movie to classify and review. With staple actors from the teen pulp genre, like Reese Witherspoon and Chris Klein, it would be easy to write it off as merely another school holiday flick. However, the issues dealt with include sexual relationships between teacher and student, and marital infidelity; subjects more suited to adult fare.The story is centred around an ambitious and perfect student (Witherspoon), and the teacher (a woefully miscast Matthew Broderick - stick to the slapstick, buddy) who decides to meddle with destiny and stop the rise and rise of Tracy Flick. His solution? To persuade another, more popular student to run against Tracy in the all-important election for student president. What he doesn't foresee is how the election will change his own life forever.It is a comedy that works very well in some places. Never again will one be able to consider a cupcake, without thinking of the 280 "Pick Flick" personalised cupcakes. And the collection of sports jocks, nerds and sundry other students, whilst highly stereotypical, are good for a few laughs. It is when the movie *tries* to be funny that it fails. A bit of special-effects make-up slapped on to resemble a bee-stung eyelid isn't all that amusing, and seems out of character with the rest of the film. Another notable aspect is the voiceovers done by the characters. These are funny and very clever, in that the viewer gets a lot more by reading between the lines, than taking what is said at face value.Election is certainly worth a watch on an idle Saturday afternoon. But don't be surprised if, at the end, you are unable to decide if you enjoyed it or not.

I thought I would condense a few of the more truthful comments made in the reviews. The big problem with this movie is that none of the characters are likable -laughinggiraffe0 from Madison, WI....so many flaws and plot holes in this film.... -kuuk3 from United KingdomAre you kidding me? -Jesus M Diaz from SpainDisastrous. Juvenile. Insulting. -DJRMewzique from CanadaI can't describe how bad this movie is. -jonathanmark-77048 from United StatesLucky I saw this on half price day -Vim Fuego from AustraliaHalf the viewers walked out. -Barclays Bainc from Canada....rampant with bad acting. MediaPanther from United StatesI think you get the gist of it. This could have been a great movie if time was taken to craft a more believable story line for the concept.As it is though, if you watch it as a Saturday morning cartoon series it comes across okay.BTW, I have suggestion for an alternate name for this film: 'Number 2'-e.

This film can't be claimed to possess much, if any, intellectual value. It won't change the way we view anything(well, it may have people looking up, and/or appreciating the unblocked view of the sky more than usual). It won't revolutionize film-making. It may not even stay in your mind for terribly long after watching it. But it is an entertaining piece while you do, and hey, it's a chance for Trekkers to see Brent Spiner outside of Star Trek. Also, it never actually claims to be more than what it is, a Summer blockbuster. The film wastes no time introducing the extra-terrestrial element. The pacing throughout the film isn't bad. The plot is decent. Emmerich makes both disaster and action aspects work well. The film apparently holds, and may very well continue to hold, the record for the most miniature model-work in any one movie... that says something about just how much action is packed into this. The acting is fine. The dialog is... not the smartest ever written. The characters aren't bad. The real draw here is definitely the explosions and action. I recommend this to fans of action- and/or disaster-flicks, as well as fans of the actors and/or the director, Roland Emmerich. 7/10

I recently saw this movie on DVD. The movie was done well, with few issues and problems. I know of person who took 7 and 8 years olds to see this movie, but some of the subject matter approached should be aleast 11/12 years of age and above.It was definitely an Indie film and budget, but the story is worth while and well acted. The action leaves much to be desired, but after all it is an Indie film. The dialogue is good. The characters are well developed. The actors includincluding Parminder, Keira and Jonathan do well with their respective roles. Pretty much all you would expect from an Indie film.

This movie is a triumph on almost every level; script, acting, directing, cinematography and special effects are all top notch. It's one of Ridley Scott's best films in years as well as a career high performance from Matt Damon who commands the screen and bring so much charisma and a surprising amount of humor to his character. The story revolves around an astronaut being stuck on Mars and having to fight to stay alive while NASA works to bring him home. The 2 1/2 hour running time goes by almost too fast as the film is full of scenes of intensity, thrills but most of all plenty of laughs. It's an all round crowd pleaser the whole family should enjoy.

Okay the story itself is incredibly stupid. I don't think there are any 40 year old males on this planet that still act that childish. But nevertheless it all doesn't matter to me. To me a comedy is about relaxing, enjoying and a lot of laughing. And with this movie I get it all. There are some really hilarious scenes that my wife and I still talk about after ten years so to me that says something about the quality of the humor. Other movies I just forget about it, but then you have some gems like this one. The whole movie turns around two actors, Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly. They really lift this movie to another level. The other actors are good as well but they don't really matter. It's all about the funny relationship between the two step brothers. Perfect movie if you like that kind of silly humor.

M. Hollenbeck Mr. Smith goes to Washington Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a look into what the romance that our people thought politics were like `Back in the day'. But in reality politics are not even close to what they were at that time and they certainly are nothing even remotely close to romantic. This movie lacked what you would call ‘shah-bang'. It wasn't even close to being exciting. Lets look at the plot shall we? It's about this every day sort of guy, who publishes a magazine for boys. And then all the sudden he is elected to be a senator. How does that happen? And then to top it all off he doesn't even know a lick about law. It was not a bad movie; it was just not all that believable. Would a real live blood-sucking lawyer of a senator back down from his verbal attacks just in time for the movie to end? That is just highly unlikely. If an opponent is beaten then why deliver them at the last second? If victory is within ones grasp then why give out at the very end? This just does not make much sense. Though it is predictable to following in the footsteps of the good old stereotypical American movie of the 50's. Over all this is a ‘good' movie. This movie receives a rating of eight out of ten.

Kevin's Smith's genius continues to amaze me. Made with a budget twice lower than blair witch's budget, he uses excellent dialogues with smart, funny comedy, reminiscent of a more quirky woody allen. If you want to laugh from start to finish, go to the local video store and rent Clerks, or any other Kevin Smith movie for that matter...You wont be dissappointed.

Let me begin by saying that this film is immensely entertaining. There are some intense action sequences that are a lot of fun to watch. Also, there are some nice twists and turns in the plot. However, several slip-ups in the film prevent it from becoming a good movie. First of all, this film never acknowledges what type of movie it is. Is it a spy-thriller? Is it a shoot-em-up action flick? Is it a B-movie? J.J. Abrams and the writing staff never clearly identifies the film with any of these sub-genres. Is it possible that the film fits all three of these categories? Also, Owen Davian, portrayed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is plain and simple a poorly scripted character. There is absolutely nothing to his character. All we know about him is that he's evil and he's a sadist. What a waste of Hoffman's vast talent. I really hated Davian, but I really didn't have any reason other than he wasn't a nice guy. And finally, why does this film have to rely so much on advanced technology (that probably doesn't even exist)? Many of the action sequences cut corners by using technology. I mean, what ever happened to good old-fashioned espionage?

Heed my words! "Battlefield Earth" is a cheap, poorly developed piece of crap that John Travolta should NEVER have considered taking part in.The entire plot is waaaaay too warped to make any actual sense, the graphics and sound effects are poor, the dialogue is almost exaggerated and the characters don't fit their roles at all.It takes place in the year 3000 and Earth has been conquered by a surprisingly arrogant and dim-witted race of aliens called the Psychlos, which is a very simple name, since it's just Psycho with an "L" before the "O". But that's just the tip of the iceberg! Very few humans are still alive after the invasion, including one in particular named Jonnie (Barry Pepper) who rallies up a bunch of other humans to rebel against the Psychlo leader, Terl (John Travolta) who is far too proud to even consider the so-called Man-animals a threat even after seeing them behave quite intelligently on several, crystal clear occasions.Along the way, the humans learn how to use jets, nuclear weapons and cumbersome alien technology within an impossibly short time of just a few days or weeks. In reality it takes months to learn even the basics of flying a jet and requires a solid education to understand the mechanics and physics of a nuclear bomb.What's even more baffling is the fact that Terl is responsible for the human victory at the end of the film because he's the one who taught them how to speak the disgusting Psychlo language and fly their stupid space craft. His abysmal plan to collect gold and bribe his way off planet Earth backfires on him due to his reckless stupidity and ridiculously severe underestimation of the humans. He ends up behind bars.....but at least he gets his gold.All in all, Battlefield Earth is just plain bad...and not in a good way like "Plan 9 from outer space". It's bad in a super-bad way!!!

A serendipity! This film outdistanced any expectation I had. It was beautifully filmed; the sepia brown-gold filtering, classic renditions of Depression folk music, careful attention to costuming and the clever script and well-balanced acting made it easy to love.

Cast Away is an excellent film. It has a great performance by Tom Hanks, the script is smartly written and the cinematography is great. I believe the movie has two flaws: one, too many characters are introduced in the beginning and in the end which really aren't relevant and the second one is that the early 2000's CGI really doesn't hold up. There's a scene in the movie where you see a whale and it just looks really fake. But these two things are minor, really, and don't really affect the movie experience.This is also one of the saddest movies in my opinion. There are two moments in the film that get me every time in tears: when Wilson drifts away, and when Hanks goes to Helen Hunt's character's house in the rain near the end of the movie. Hanks' great performance only adds feeling to these moments. The last act of the film usually gets a bad rep, which I really don't understand because I think it is an essential part to the movie and the last scene is the perfect ending, in my opinion.Cast Away is heartbreaking, touching and often hard to watch. It is also a great film.

Randall Wallace made one fun movie that was blown out of proportion and pushed him into an ego happy land on par with Leonardo DiCaprio. Braveheart was popcorn munching heaven. Everything since then has been a steady drivel of nothing—like coffee grounds forced, FORCED from the bottom of the pot to make an unwilling cuppa. This movie is bland on so many levels it's a shame. I think it was about 20 minutes into it when the helicopters that look like knock off plastic hueys on a blue screen do little aerials that I realized money here would have been better spent on advancing technology for turning ducks into toaster ovens. From there it just sort of goes down hill. Lessee... we've got the obligatory 5 seconds of screen time for the token black guy who just looks confused (seriously, do any of you know how MANY black people really fought in the Vietnam war? Jeepers), the obligatory shaky, gritty camera shots when the battle gets wicky wild; the reverb echo effects just before the big big oh no mortars fall; friendly fire; blood blood everywhere; grim face shots of our lead actor; young faces going into battle; battle screams—dang, we have a veritable A-list A-team here—and yet... this movie just kills itself. It's like Disney doing a porno—every shot in between is crystal clear and filled with—'we know not the evil we do' sentimentality. It's saccharine, it's silly, it's not worth your while. If you want a good war movie—go for broke with Full Metal Jacket, Thin Red Line, or Dr. Strangelove. However, if you're in the market for lackluster string sections sound-tracking slow-motion montages of sucky images with poor poor poor poor adobe premiere flame effects... why, your cattle car stops here! Watch as Mel Gibson takes another lofty glance at that mountain over th'ar; see minority groups squabble and then make ends meet; witness Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson reconcile their bigotry in Braveheart (if you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you should read more) by attempting rationalizations from the enemy perspective (gee, they're almost human!); C-class emotional drama... the list of daunting accomplishments goes on. 4 / 10 for this sludge fest. It gets 4 for actually accomplishing what I think it set out to do: show lot's of people being killed, make shallow stabs at moral messages, parade around with American imperialism, and make some money.As an addendum (and quoting another post I made) Just because a film is about human tragedy (american and/or otherwise) doesn't mean we should exempt it from criticism on its (lack of) artistic merit as a film. Furthermore, why bother making a film that relies so heavily on its source material that it has fans raving, "well you can't understand unless you've read the book, otherwise you'll never understand." This is as idiotic as the faith defense. I shouldn't have to read the book! It's a movie! If I wanted to read the book, then I would have read the book! People make films because they're a fundamentally different medium from the written word. It takes guts (though often with very poor results) to turn a book into a screenplay. While the source material might be "good" in its own right, it in no way excuses the film for falling flat.

Wow. This was recommended by a coworker and I must say I liked this film. Especially the gang war sequence. There's about 15 minutes straight of brutal violence and with NO guns. Awesome. Good backstory as well with a bizarre love triangle, parental molestation, and epilepsy. The whole thing fits together in a neat little package and is essential viewing for any Crowe fans who want to see some of his earlier work. 7/10....

The comments provided here on Constantine demonstrate why IMDb, and similar websites that post messages without editorial filters, are losing any real usefulness. Although this movie was receiving favorable ratings, the initial comments were quite negative. This makes no sense, except as a posting board for irresponsible adolescents (of all ages).Constantine is a very well made movie, with an engaging story, strong acting, and excellent special effects. Strongly negative comments about the movie are nonsensical: some viewers will be unhappy with the strong horror elements (the movie plays early on with the Exorcist theme), and others may be dismayed with some of the religious portrayals (e.g., the angel Gabriel, especially in her first scene). But there is nothing about this movie that deserves strongly negative comments. For those few that read the comic book and have commented here in that regard, get a life; no one else cares about those comparisons!The movie opens with a very well done, if somewhat short, exorcism scene; scary enough to keep my wife, and those like her, away. Keanu Reeves does an excellent job playing Constantine, who can observe demons and angels on earth. A big part of the storyline has to do with how Constantine can "earn" his way into heaven. He is cynical about the religious perspectives on heaven and hell, but has serious pressure put on him to overcome his cynicism, and figure out how to escape immortal damnation. Adding to his angst is the fact that he knows heaven and hell exist; he has visited hell on more than one occasion, and one of the many excellent scenes in the movie is when we first go with him to view this movie's vision of hell.The casting of the movie is absolutely top-rate. The angel Gabriel is extremely engagingly done by Tilda Swinton, a classic beauty that is somewhat androgynous in appearance, but whose voice is all female. This combination, along with some very abrupt and surprising dialog provide as memorable a character as I've seen on screen in a long time. Peter Stormare's portrayal as Satan provides another very, very memorable character; two big reasons this movie deserves serious attention. Stormare's characterization of Satan is absolutely surprising, but at the same time very believable. Gabriel and Satan are both given subtle costuming and makeup that strongly assists in their unusual and memorable performances. These two characters, so strongly deeply embedded in our society, will provoke very mixed reactions across the audience, and many of you will not be as awe-struck as I was with Swinton and Stormare's performances. But I do believe that all of you will agree that the portrayals are engaging, surprising, and very well directed. Rachel Weisz also is extremely good in the lead female role. She is a police officer that has to investigate the apparent suicide of her twin sister, leading her to asking for assistance from Constantine. The story provides significant tension and moral questioning for her character. The movie, in my opinion, is most interesting in how it takes all the elements of well-made modern movies (excellent special effects, plays on classic movie scenes, crisp action, and strong storyline), combines these with the fun of a seemingly (at first) comic-book-level storyline and extremely unusual takes on religion (especially with the first meeting between Constantine and Gabriel), and ties these together at the end of the movie into a truly unusual, engaging and memorable finish. The end of the movie makes some important statements that I believe any open-minded Christian would be engaged and interested in. But it does this in a way that allows non-Christians (such as myself) to be equally as engaged and thought-provoked. This is a movie I'll see again (soon), and be thinking about and talking over with friends and family for a long time. It isn't that the movie is truly important in a religious sense, but rather that it is so entertaining, and presented in such an unusual and engaging way. Movies like this can be thought-provoking and engaging at many levels.I give this movie 10 stars, as all elements of it are extremely well done, and very entertaining.

Even when you think you understand what you - as for a part of the audience - see on screen after few minutes you see there's nothing you really understood and the story simply sticks you to your stall and you start another piece of the puzzle. Two stories engaged together that became a whole great and sad story of a woman who leaves two children and a huge mystery behind.The film is quite long. Though you don't feel the time passing and going. After more or less 30 minutes you want to jump on the screen and just try to help. Some woman maybe will feel identified with the main character in some parts of the movie (no spoiler....) and some man will hate their gender on some scenes.At the end - you get an entire story of separation, unification, love, revenge and mercy - without the sticky taste of the classical American movies.Almost a masterpiece.

I love Harry Potter. I've read all the books, seen all the movies, been to Alnwick but yet to visit a theme park. It seemed to me that JKR began to write by the yard with the books, and in due course the movies, becoming flabby, overblown, overlong and lacking direction. But don't get me wrong - I'm still a fan. With the advent of Fantastic Beasts came the opportunity to right a few wrongs and start afresh but no, the same problems persist, along with a few new ones. The plot of Fantastic Beasts is obscure and often difficult to fathom and retain. If the Director lacks direction, then pity the poor audience. Having read the HP books prior to seeing the movies I had some idea of what was supposed to be going on, but not in this case. JKR is rightly an icon but that's not to say that everything she does is great. And this is not great. Most of the innumerable characters add nothing but confusion to the picture and it speaks volumes that the most endearing character is a mute CGI mole-like creature. There'll probably be a spin-off. The movie is saved through it's 3D and CGI. It is fabulous. Breathtaking. Dare I say it before someone else does? -spellbinding. The best ever. But shouldn't it be more than this? I was lucky enough to have seen this in Imax 3D and thoroughly enjoyed the experience but I very much doubt that watching in a lesser format would be half as impressive. So - what's the bottom line? Is it worth seeing? The answer is a definite Yes, though not in 2D. And JKR? Still love you but please listen to your critics and do better. Please.

simply awesome.......good movie ever made in India By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.

(Sorry my bad English, I will make my best effort) First I am not a fan of gore, even I had not seen even a trailer of this movie. I just watched this movie, my review is short: teenagers having fun, some erotic scenes and then a blood bath. In my opinion the scenes were too predictable: get anxious in a scene, first reaction was a mistake, then immediately comes the scare followed by a strong sound.Merely, without the gore scenes, I think I was watching "Naked Wild On", except for the piranhas.Some parts of the movie were just awful, I do not want waste time reviewing them.A few years ago I watched "Elfen Lied", a Japanese anime, my first impression was just a nonsense blood bath, however, after viewing the next chapters, the plot was very interesting, nothing like this movie.So, if you are not a fan of gore, or at least want a good plot in this type of movies, do not watch this movie.

the film was watchable, although I have skipped some scenes, the film anyhow did not have any wisdom, intelligence or ingeniousness AT ALL ! It shouldn't even be close to the Oscar nominations, just a gay club, a gay couple, and their son who wants to get marry his girlfriend and they end up getting married, it's one of these simple-happy-ending movies that deserve 5 out of 10 MAX ! I am still shocked that it was nominated for an Oscar that time, what the hell were they thinking? still I would never say 'never watch this film' it was not that bad of a film, but I wouldn't suggest it to anyone, 4 out of 10 seems very reasonable to me,

Started off pretty good. Interesting, eerie, lots of potential. But by half way through, I knew disappointment was in the air. The "infected" are barely involved, just showing up occasionally to keep our main characters moving on to the next place. And while the ads boast "scary as hell," I'd have to say it's anything but. Not one moment in this film was truly scary. As for the cast, they did okay. It's always good to see Brendan Gleeson in another role, and Christopher Eccleston, while his character was a bit lacking, did good with what he had to work with as well. The other newcomers weren't bad, but it won't be a breakthrough role for any of them. This seems to be the Blair Witch of this year. People want a good scary movie, and word-of-mouth is pushing this one, but it's mind-boggling to figure out who it is that thinks this is good. Was it a horrible movie? No. But it's nothing I'll ever care to see again. I'll take my clichéd American horror movies over this any day, thank you.As for the "alternate ending"... What a joke. I mean, actually the alternate one (while not as upbeat, so mainstream America will hate it), is better, because the ending they used takes a giant leap and makes no sense at all. But this kind of gimmick is best left to DVD extras.

I saw the film after it's been ripped apart by the internet crowd and film critics.What's everyone's problem? Johnny Depp is charming and does such a good job in this role.It's got ghosts and vampires and a fantastic soundtrack.I'm still blown away my the opening sequence done to the Moody Blues classic Nights in White Satin.I love the look and the vibe of this movie. It's not meant to be taken seriously. It's not meant to be a hard boiled horror movie.Relax and have some fun!

The Plot: (Harrison Ford) Returns as intrepid CIA agent Jack Ryan in this critically acclaimed box-office smash from the producers of Patriot Games. When his mentor Admiral James Greer (James Earl Jones) becomes gravely ill, Ryan is appointed acting CIA Deputy Director of Intelligence. His first assignment: Investigate the murders of one of the president's friends, a prominent U.S. businessman with secret ties to Colombian drug cartels. Unbeknownst to Ryan, the CIA has already dispatched a deadly field operative (Willem Dafoe) to lead a paramilitary strike force against the Colombian drug lords. Caught in the crossfire, Ryan takes matters into his own hands, risking his career and life for the only cause he still believes in - the truth.My Spiel: This is my favorite of the Tom Clancy style war books turned to movies. Granted I like Hunt for the Red October. But the style of this is something else. This in my eyes is a true classic, of a man getting caught in a situation way bigger then he can explain at first. In the styles of the Patriot Games. This has a major one up on that. When the strike force team move in to Colombian territories commanded by Willem Dafoe's character. Also to the character Jack Ryan getting thrown / Betrayed into a conspiracy to send troops to stop the drug trafficking and cartel, and then uncovers the truth, and wants nothing more then to get those troops out after they were sold out. This is a action packed movie from beginning to end with the assault on the Suburban scene and every scene with the paramilitary strike force team. Love the acting between Harrison Ford and Willem Dafoe truly something to be admired, favorite scene when Ford goes to get the helicopter for Dafoe.Clear and Present Danger (1994) Review: 8/10

I am totally baffled by the revelation that most people I know hated the first Austin Powers movie and loved the second. For a start, in the original you could feel sympathy with our hero who was hopelessly out of place in modern society, but that's just gone in this catastrophically disappointing sequel. Secondly, these 'hilarious gags' that were supposedly abundant in this film WERE TAKEN FROM THE FIRST! Wake up people! Now, I'm not going to diss this film completely as there were a couple of scenes that made me laugh out loud - the silhouetted tent scene and the Powers / Mini me punch up. However, a certain other new creation, Fat B*****d, is probably the least funny character ever to appear on our cinema screens. Oh, and I know I'm in the minority here, but Liz Hurley was infinitely preferable to Heather Graham as Powers' sidekick. In summary, an awful follow up to a superb movie that just scrapes 4/10 for the two scenes mentioned herein.

The Hours is an extraordinary film. To many, the movies are a way to gain perspective about life, to identify with characters...to find a way relate it to your own personal situations and examine it's issues to broaden your own mind. For people who look for this in movies, The Hours is an experience never to be forgotten. It contains normal people in normal lives with normal problems. They deal with problems most people deal with on a daily basis. It is a movie about the human condition...a condition that is far from perfect. Most people try put up a facade so others will think everything is fine...but it rarely is. Every day, people struggle to balance their lives between managing their problems and insecurities, while trying to portray a certain image to those around them. The person who is actually able to be honest with himself/herself and refrain from avoiding his or her problems is the one who is the happiest. The Hours helps us examine our lives and to see if we are truly living, or if we are simply spending all of our time avoiding those things that make us uncomfortable. Each character has a different ending, which occur when they have no other choice. For Clarissa, the events that happen around her force her to really think about the way she is living her life and encourages her to change it.The acting in this movie is absolutely superb, and the casting could not have been any better. The film is honest and true and reflects the human condition through single day. Virgina Woolf was right about how you can recognize a person's life in a single day. What happens in that day shows their situation, their struggles, and the choices they are forced to make.

In all honesty, a film like this must be compared to it's peers. The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, Ten Things I Hate About You, American Pie, etcetera, ad infinitum...It's a coming of age teenage angst film. Unpopular kids trying to get with the popular girls in their senior year of high school.But in all honesty, the cast was more like Middle School children entering into High School.Sure there were funny moments, jailbait eye candy, drinking and sexual innuendo's, and what have you...But after a while, it started to drag on.Whats worse is that when the ending came, it really didn't have a resolution or anything, just a very quick "this is where we part ways" moment with the one character looking back.Not only that, but with the resolution neither of them seemed terribly happy about it, even though they ultimately got what they wanted.The fat kids obnoxious quips got old, and the skinny kids monotone voice made him seem bored all the time.And the geeky kid with the annoying voice... well he was funny as a Jon Cryer comedy relief aspect...Other wise a mediocre movie at best. Funny yes, replay value? Not really. There are considerably better movies of similar styling out there that make this on just get lost in the pile.

Feisty, charming, ultimately trifling – a first-class chick-flick! A beautiful woman and her daughter blow into a prudish French village and shake things up with the magic of sinfully dark, sumptuously rich, creamy, smooth chocolate. There's fine acting, nice craftsmanship, and a sweet little storyline suggesting that men are pretty controlling and useless unless they're Johnnie Depp on a riverboat. I misted up in the right places, then felt uplifted in the end, but the whole thing felt a little too fakey and contrived to take seriously.

Depressing, dark and dismal, Monster is the true story of Aileen, a prostitute turned serial killer.Charlize Theron is both stunning and disgusting as Aileen, such a beautiful actress in her other films, and in real life, however in Monster she's absolutely hideous as Aileen, the make up guys must have put a shift in to make her look this ugly. Fed up of hooking every night on the edge of the freeway, Aileen aims to turn her life around and soon meets the meek little girl, Selby, gradually the couple fall deeper in love, and both have to accept that there is indeed some lesbian in each of them, evidenced by the scenes depicting them kissing and fooling around, also they share a bed, and it is implied that they have also had sex. During this early period, Aileen attempts to secure herself a steady job , going to several interviews, but sadly, the lack of experience, and her previous life choices let her down each time and eventually she accepts that she is unemployable as a result. But the couple need money, so Aileen has no choice but to go back to the one thing she's always been good at, hooking. One night while at work, a man stops, picks her up, obviously wanting her services, but the man is brutal and vicious, beating poor Aileen to within an inch of her life, out of sheer desperation Aileen struggles free and kills the man in cold blood. A fatal mistake, and was this the end? Oh no, it was just the beginning! A light bulb went on in Aileen's head, from then on, instead of simply hooking, she would instead flag these nasty men down, take them somewhere secluded and kill them, then steal all their money, hey, it's far more profitable, plus she gets to kill nasty, violent men, what's not to like?One day she took it one step too far, by killing a cop, this proved to be Aileen's downfall and eventually she was caught, arrested and sentenced to death in court. Personally I enjoyed Monster it was just very difficult to watch, I was drawn in and became quite sympathetic to Aileen, but my heart went out to Selby even more so, a simple, frightened girl who is pretty much brainwashed into being Aileen's sidekick and partner, should've stayed at home Selby, carved out a better, legal life for yourself, and I continued saying this every time the character was on the screen.Charlize Theron won the academy award for best actress for Monster, a rightful choice, she was absolutely superb as Aileen, just as I said earlier, unattractive and rather disgusting. She was the first female serial killer in America, and her story is well told, my only snag is the runtime and the fact it could have broke the 2 hour mark rather than being a little over an hour and 40 minutes.

This movie is a great concept and certainly has some funny moments with a storyline that could work well. It doesn't.I can see why this film polarizes people. If the delivery was cleaned up a little and the lead characters had even a small part of redeeming quality to them - so they were scoundrels rather than just plain repulsive, this would be a much better film.To put it another way, this had the potential to be a great film but is just a wasted opportunity. A little bit of subtlety here and there would have gone a long way.John Ritter - RIP

This movie was a huge disappointment. The trailer had me ready for a comedy that would have me rolling and I got, instead, a lame attempt at a comedy that could have been written by any high school student. Even with a crew of humored college students behind me in the theater keeping it fresh, I couldn't bring myself to enjoy this film.All attempts at comedy are simply toilet humor. Any time the screenwriters felt like they needed a laugh, they just threw in the F-word a couple of dozen times and a sexual reference... not funny. Just lame.The widespread support of this movie makes me wonder if I'll ever see an actual funny movie again...

Se7en by Azeri critic This movie, which directed by David F. is very intelligently movie. Shortly, we can say: this movie about psychopath which things he is "prophet – priest" and every sins which he do, it comes from God . I think this movie can help society to understand that not everyone which call name of God is saint. And this movie can help people to see real word, how killers, terrorist, use religion for itself. At the end Police officer kill him, to make his own justice …..Rated this movie 10 point 10. I wish best watch for this movie.

This movie is NOT rated "R" but rather "NC-17" if not "X" rated. I got tired and almost fell asleep a some parts. About half of the movie is nothing more then them drinking, partying, and doing drugs. Literally. Also a bunch of pornography. It's like a college gone crazy for half of the movie (you see like 40+ boobies, a bunch of sex scenes, and a few shorts glimpse of a penis AND vagina)I got so excessive everyone I went with debated on leaving...The humor is not bad and there is a decent amount of it throughout the movie. (7/10) The acting, mainly Leonardo, was fantastic! (9.5/10) The story is a bit shallow. Basically a bunch of people lying, cheating, stealing, and running/escaping on Wall Street and making a lot of "dirty" illegal money. Then talking talk and talking bad about other people who are honest but make less. The movie portrays a picture that money is the most important thing and it is what brings you happiness very well. (2/10) Near the end it shows that being controlled by money is very bad, but it wasn't portrayed as well as it did trying to argue for money bringing happiness. It shows a bunch of "rich" folks who have nothing but money thinking they're above everyone else. No health, no relationships, no integrity, no manners, no respect, no honesty, no time, nothing but money and the animalistic drive to get more and destroy everything in the way.As a movie it makes the world a depressing place. Overall the main thing I like about the movie is Leonardo Dicaprio. Props to him for continuing to be an awesome actor. The movie content itself was subpar.

One of the funniest movies of the last six years.A winning combination of comedy talent given free reign to develop their (admittedly one dimensional) characters to provide a series of great compliments/contrasts that give the film a degree of depth.At the top of the food chain is Applegate's Corningstone. She fulfills her ironic role of eye-candy-with-a-punch well (although she is perhaps the weakest of the bunch). She shoots down Farrell's Burgundy to great effect (the 'when in Rome' joke is a classic), and their relationship deals neatly with the film's moral message (chavinistic cartels are doomed to failure in the face of liberated women).The plankton at the bottom is Carrell's Brick. Carrell clearly loved his role, and with McKay's assistance has managed the near impossible of making his every line an instant classic ('I ate a big red candle'... 'I love lamp'etc, ad.inf.)His absolute stupidity is cleverly highlighted to great comic effect by the fact even Burgundy can pick him up on his comments (r.e. 'I love lamp'- 'Brick, do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying that because you saw it?' 'I love lamp').Koechner and Rudd are funny as they ham up their characters of oversexed hick and wannabee-Lothario-actually-wet-sap smoothie. Koechner's Champ is probably afforded the least opportunity to develop a real persona (but Koechner's caricature is so grotesque that it really isn't required!). In the UK, to break out the 'Sex Panther' has become a by-word for dressing/scenting up in a manner that dooms you to a score-free night from the get-go. I'm sure that's true in the USA as well.Unsurprisingly didn't win any Oscars. But it was well worth the cinema ticket and the DVD purchase.PS look out for Willard and Vaughn in peerless cameos.

I will keep this short and simple...The 5 Oscars winning movie turns stereotypical clichés of drama-musical into a more mature portrayal. It is nothing short of being a one of those powerful films. J.k. Simmons alone achieving approx. 50 awards (1 being Oscar) for his role in this particular film, may provide some hint into what kind of performance you might expect from him... I have watched this film over 12 times and I would watch it gain (no doubt!!!) And yes... surely... this is one of the best movie of the year... ENJOY!!!

Regarding to the story, Grand Budapest Hotel is a movie about the chase for a very valuable painting called Boy with Apple, which Gustave H., Concierge at the famous Grand Budapest Hotel, inherited. Not important! This movie isn't about a great story, it's about beautiful cinematography, and if it's about a story, it's the history of the Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson made the right decision, when he decided to underline the different decades by choosing different aspect ratios. It's Wes Anderson at it's best. I also want to highlight the really good cutting. Apart from that the dialogues are brilliant, for example because of the characters quick-witted answers. It definitely deserves it's four Oscars and it should have get even more. Sorry for my bad English

A beautiful picture. Russell Crowe was brilliant and should definitely be an Oscar contender. Enjoyed the movie very much. Ron Howard did a fantastic directing job. Jennifer Connolly was wonderful as John Nash's wife. Really can't say anything bad about this picture.

It says something about the general dullness of 2009 cinema when you can go back to a (at the time) somewhat mediocre-seeming 2003 slow-paced meditation on seamanship and find some redeeming value in it! Six years ago, M&C mostly disappointed --- when His Flabbiness Russell Crowe suspended himself sideways from the rigging, you mostly feared that the main mast would surely give away due to the considerable added weight, and Paul Bettany's petulant, annoying, balding MD was another nuisance. Also, the porked-out midshipmen hardly looked like one's imagination of the sea-worn products of early 19th- century cuisine and lifestyle. And what was the plot again, exactly?Inspired no doubt by the success of the "Hornblower" TV mini-series, M&C set out to give us the big-budget version of Hornblower, with bigger storms, bigger ships, bigger VFX. And it mostly succeeded, somehow, even though at the time of its release it seemed like a failure. But then again, how can you possibly fault a film that has the good sense to use Bach's cello suite #1 for its breather in the middle, the totally-pointless-but-still-wonderful Galapagos episode?I think the trick is to approach this movie like a French art-house film from the sixties--- where nothing ever happens, no plot lines are ever resolved, and where the ending seems oddly circular and to come out of nothing ("Whoops Mrs. Miggins, the enemy captain is actually still alive -- so let's turn the ship!"). Like I said, it's a kind of meditation, so the whole idea that this movie should deliver on the basis of action scenes was flawed to begin with. It's much like "Moby Dick", except that in this version the white whale never gets caught for more than five minutes. Which doesn't make it any less enjoyable, especially if you consider the wonderful sound design. So my recommendation would be to watch this together with the "Hornblower" TV series---the two artistic visions wonderfully complement each other.

It took a bit of courage to do that ! Somehow we should all thank Schumacher. Hadn't the franchise gone through the total nonsense we had to suffer, nobody would have dared going back to the beginning of the series to recreate this character that had been *stolen* by Burton. For someone like me who's been very frustrated by every batman movies so far – yes, including Burton's ones (I think he's partly responsible of the crap that followed his movies), there were great expectations for this new one. Unfortunately, they're not all fulfilled, but the movie is the closest yet to what should have been done in the first place.First : the great sense of realism. They succeeded where Daredevil the movie failed (while somehow showing the way) : they made it believable. You go through every step of what made Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, psychologically and physically.For that purpose, Christian Bale is the best Batman so far because he's able to deliver in both areas : he's able to express the intensity of the character, all his doubts, his strength and when as batman, he becomes the scary character batman is supposed to be. And physically, he looks able, the hard work he went through is visible, although he does look like a rich kid who had a comfortable life. Bale has also a third dimension: charisma control. As one could detect with movies like Shaft, Swing Kids and many others, Bale is able to disappear in his character, make it insignificant or very impressive, a bit like a younger DeNiro could. This especially suits the fake Wayne character, the facade he uses to hide his true personality. The way Bale goes to one character to the other is impressive.The whole cast is great.Micheal Caine could almost steal the show from Christian Bale, had he been given more screen time, with his impeccable phrasing and voice and gesture. Brilliant and moving.The Same could be said for Wilkinson acting, except that he's playing a much less sympathetic character. It's almost too bad his character wasn't more important. Good work !Rutger Hauer is excellent too though his character in the story looks a bit like a reason to have Hauer in the movie, and not the contrary.Morgan Freeman looks like he's on a routine, playing the character he has most often played lately. Well he's great but you already saw this performance many times...Liam Neeson put his Qi-Gon Jin attitude on again but with more depths, citing ambiguous statements ; a much darker and more interesting Qi-Gon Jin. Good.Cilian Murphy was a revelation to me, I didn't know him too well, and he was brilliantly creepy in this movie ! When I saw the pictures of the Scarecrow, before I saw the movie, I thought he didn't look serious... But in the movie, he's a VERY serious villain !Gary Oldman does a very good job at playing a simple yet most honest cop, lost amongst corrupt colleagues. This vision of Gordon is smart as it explains how such an honest cop could have survived in city controlled by the mob. Gordon is less than unimpressive, therefore nobody's scared of his honest attitude. But when Batman gives him his support, he gradually takes control over the situation and gain more assurance.That's probably what was missed with the character played by the charming Katie Holmes. Her character isn't well written or well used. She looks very young, lacking experience. Her display of strong will to serve justice doesn't feel like a serious disposition but more like a little girl trying to look mature or to please daddy. Something doesn't work here. The tension that could have existed because of her in Bruce Wayne's character seems to have been wasted too. Yet she has good moments in the movie, especially in the early parts of it. The other disappointing thing in the movie are the fighting sequences. We see Bruce Wayne training hard, and Bale is definitely able to provide some moves... Yet we never see Batman in a fight, we have to guess. I'm not talking of scenes like in the docks which are meant to show Batman's stealth skill. But the final duel in the train was quite a let-down.Actually, the last third of the movie started flirting with the crappy side of Hollywood movies.There's a big plan being revealed, the kind any superhero wouldn't mind facing, the unavoidable "he gets to save the world" pattern, but which gets us a bit away from the realism of the first two thirds.From there, it kinda looks like a draft: everything goes fast, and while the story makes some sense throughout, a lot of small scenes feel inconsistent or botched. The whole idea of people roaming in the streets, scared by their own fears has been wasted, IMHO. Probably because this would have required more screen time to be unfold properly. Also I don't think the villain behind the conspiracy makes an impressive evil guy.Conclusion : The film is only flawed by very few badly written characters (Rachel Dawes and Ra's Al-Ghul) and the too little time devoted to the big evil plan. The first two thirds of the movie and the last five minutes were the most exciting to me! The script doesn't take the easy way with the revenge theme. Bruce Wayne's pain is never resolved, there's no relief and that's what the character is about.What's interesting with Super-heroes is when you're told their stories in a way that makes you believe in them. I'm very glad when a director like Nolan is able to achieve just that I hope they'll do another Daredevil movie inspired by the seriousness of this batman movie. "Batman Begins" is closer to Frank Miller's Daredevil, than the Daredevil movie was.

Let me say right up front that I am an atheist and a secularist and as such I don't care about any religious undertones or allegory this series may contain. My review of this movie is based on the book to movie transition and how good it is as a fantasy film.The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was a return to what Narnia is supposed to be. Narnia is nowhere near as good as Harry Potter or the Middle Earth trilogies. But the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was a good movie in its own way. Prince Caspian was more disappointing. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader restored the magic and wonder of Narnia. Prince Caspian placed a very heavy emphasis on battle scenes and was darker and more serious than is appropriate for the Narnia series. Narnia is supposed to be full of wonder and magic. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe had it, Prince Caspian lost it, and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader restores it. First of all, while the Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a less literal translation of the book to the movie, it is still very faithful to the book. What will be very noticeable to viewers who are familiar with the book is that the order events occur in in the movie is different from the book and in some cases noticeably so. This is a non issue to me. The fact remains that most of the important events from the book are in the movie. Furthermore, a change in order is actually good for the movie. It works far better cinematically to have Eustace's dragon form occur later in the story. Also, the book is largely episodic so altering the order of events doesn't really alter the meaning or significance of any event. At the end of the day it's still about the quest for the lost lords and the for Aslan's Country. Now we have the issue of content not in the book being added to the film. While I do not agree with the director that a "thrust" needed to be added as I think the quest for the lost lords and Aslan's Country is a perfectly good thrust, I do like the addition of laying the Seven Swords at Aslan's Table. This addition is completely consistent with the original story as the Seven Swords plot line fits right alongside the Seven Lords plot line. On the other hand I certainly could have done without that retarded green mist subplot. The green mist subplot? No. Just. No. The acting/casting was mixed to positive as is typical for this series. Liam Neeson is an awesome voice of Aslan and Georgie always gives a splendid performance as Lucy. On the other hand I've never cared for Edmund in the movies and Ben's Caspian is good but not great. Obviously the main newbie here is Will as Eustace and he's fantastic. He captures the annoying and unlikable nature of the character brilliantly. The Eustace of this movie felt far more real than the Edmund of LLW. The pacing is excellent. This movie gets going quickly and never has a dull moment. But the best part of this movie is the special effects and visuals. This movie is beautifully shot and absolutely breathtaking. This movie has very vivid colors, very realistic looking settings and items, and just about perfect production quality. The special effects and visuals in this movie are a wonder to behold. This is also easily the most family friendly/ child friendly movie in the Narnia series so it can be enjoyed by just about anyone. All in all The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a quality movie that restores the wonder and magic of Narnia. Faithfulness to the book: 8 out of 10. Casting/acting: 7 out of 10. Pacing: 10 out of 10. Special effects and visuals: 10 out of 10. Overall: 9 out of 10.

"We're the Millers" gives new meaning to potboiler. This uneven but entertaining comedy of errors about a wise-cracking, small-time pot dealer who smuggles two metric tons of weed in a recreational vehicle has its share of moments. This is one of those drug movies where the narcotics constitute little more than packing material. Nobody is either shown inhaling marijuana or experiencing a buzz. The producers could have substituted another illegal drug here just to underline the generic quality of the story. It is difficult to imagine how "Wedding Crashers" writers Bob Fisher and Steve Faber could have taken this imaginative premise and blown it. Not only did they concoct the idea but also the screenplay. Who knows how much "Sex Drive" scribe Sean Anders or "Hot Tub Time Machine" writer John Morris altered the premise? Like as not, Anders and Morris probably retooled the narrative. Nevertheless, this criminal comedy is not for people who prefer clean, conventional comedy. While the dialogue is riddled profanity, the subject matter is almost as objectionable. For example, another RV couple want to indulge in group sex to enliven their sex life. The funniest joke qualifies also as the most gross. Will Poulter is bitten on the testicle by a big hairy spider, and his testicle inflates like a balloon. Naturally, "Dodge Ball: A True Underdog Story" director Rawson Marshall Thurber gives us a fleeting glimpse of this abnormality. You'll have to pause your Blu-ray or DVD to get a good glance at it. Admittedly, this comedy could have been worse. Stereotypes abound for comic purposes since this is broadly told comedy. The big-time drug dealers are depicted as despicable, and Ed Helms emerges as the slime of the slime. The cartel drug kingpin likes to shoot first and worry about the consequences afterward. The DEA Agent is depicted as flawed but human. The whole idea of a fake family and the evolution of their kinship is remotely appealing. None of them want to be a part of the family. Circumstances beyond their control compel them to take part in the crime. The eternally youthful Jennifer Aniston appears to be more intent on proving that she hasn't grown old and flabby with her tame stripper routine. Alas, she doesn't strip down to her bare buns. The whole enterprise is hopelessly conventional even when it struggles to be crude.Our hapless hero, David (Jason Sudeikis of "Horrible Bosses"), rushes to the rescue of a homeless girl, Casey (Emma Roberts of "Nancy Drew"), when three knife-wielding thugs try to pinch her iPhone. David intervenes in the fracas after naive Kenny Rossmore (Will Poulter of "Son of Rambow") proves how ineffectual that he is. The street hoodlums take all of David's narcotics and his money. When David's drug boss Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms of "The Hangover") finally catches up with the elusive David, he cuts him a deal to compensate for his considerable losses. Reluctantly, David agrees to pick up a massive load of marijuana in Mexico. During a conversation on the street after his meeting with Brad, David discovers the perfect gimmick to ensure that he is not busted. He assembles a pseudo-family because the authorities turn a blind eye to a family in an RV. One of the David's customers, who owes him money, is shacking up in the same apartment complex with a stripper, Rose O'Reilly (Jennifer Aniston) who has to quit her job. The man who runs the strip joint changes his mind and makes his girls perform fellatio on his customers. Sickened and degraded by this new rule, Rose walks off the job. Reluctantly, she joins David. Along the way, our heroes run afoul of other ruthless drug dealers. The treacherous Brad has told David to introduce himself as the man who serves Pablo Chacon. After David rolls off the premises with more dope that he could ever imagine, we learn that Brad lied when he told David to use Pablo's name. Veteran character actor Luis Guzman has a minor role as a corrupt Mexican cop who is gay.Look out for the language if profanity is a concern. "We're The Millers" appears to have gotten its R-rating for its language and the use of the F-bomb.

I was rather disappointed in the movie. Perhaps because I enjoyed the book so much that I had higher expectations for the movie. It seemed like the movie just took some important highlights from the book and just strung them together. I do like how they stayed true to the ending, however. It is a tough way to end the movie and story but they do a good job of laying out both sides of the issue.The characters: Patrick - didn't like Casey in this role. Not that he didn't do the best he could but just don't see him believable in the role. Ironically, I think Ben Affleck would have been a better choice.Angie - played too soft for my liking. Her character in the book had a tougher edge. And she was almost a bit player in the movie.Poole - great choice with John Ashton. I thought he did a good job and is as the book described him.Bressant (actually Broussard in the book) - Harris did a good job of portraying this character. However, he was limited in being allowed to develop the character. Never felt that he was likable in the movie where in the book he was a complex person.Bubba - sorry, this character never came across as the psychopath he really is.Cheese - waaaaay different than the book character.Bea and Lionel - liked the job they did.As you can see, my problems were around the characters and character development. Probably not enough time to truly develop the characters so that the viewer could really grasp what they were all about.If you haven't read the book you may like it more than I. But if you read and liked the book you may have a higher expectation.

This review contains spoilers so stop reading if you haven't seen the movie. Personally I can't understand what the professional film critics didn't like about this movie. Are all movies from now on supposed to be politically correct and without any flawed decisions by any of the characters? Actually I liked the movie Passengers very much and I did not miss the wild action scenes that have made other Sci-Fi movies so popular. There was drama, an intelligent plot and something for us viewers to think about; "Would I have woken someone up?" I know I would have woken someone up, since being alone for a week or a month is bearable, but to know you will be alone for the rest of your life, totally unbearable.

Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK) Rating: 3.7/5 starsUnabashedly entertaining, relentlessly engrossing, and delightfully mesmerizing. "Now You See Me" is the kind of heist film that cockily displays the lighter side of entertainment in the crime genre with oodles of style and chutzpah. But the discerning viewer too gets his share of the pie with the ample twists and turns, which keep you riveted and guessing right till the end - a rare feat to accomplish in movies these days. Boasting of an all star cast, each actor brings forth a unique charm and persona to his/her role.The icing on the cake is the jolting twist at the grand finale, which knocks you spellbound and leaves you with a savory taste in its aftermath. You can't help but yearn for a sequel to this intricately wound tale at the earliest.

This movie is brilliant. What a great statement of the frustration of thirty-something college grads struggling through the corporate rat race. If you have ever had a job, any job, you will see people from work in every scene of this movie. When you go back to work, you will not be able to listen to a word your boss says, or attend another meeting without making fun of everything. The best water cooler movie of all time. The comedy is quick, sharp, and thought provoking. You will definitely identify with at least one, if not many of the characters in this movie. How about a pre-Brad Jennifer Aniston. If you haven't worked for a Lumberg before, you just haven't worked.

This movie is terrible. Unfortunately a short review usually indicates ignorance, however the reason for the brevity of this comment is because the movie isn't worth the effort required to enumerate its flaws. Halfway through the movie we watched it in 1.5 speed, and I'm glad. The movie is extremely poorly written, and the dialog seems to be written for children. It is long and is composed mostly of explanations for obvious plot points. Everything is mediocre. I am amazed that this movie even earned a 4.NOW TO FILL UP SPACE:Don't WASTE YOUR TIME!HONESTLY, AFTERWARDS YOU ARE GOING TO WISH YOU PLAYED MONOPOLY OR SOMETHING

When I saw the preview for this movie, it seemed so similar to Silence of the Lambs that I really didn't really want to see it. Luckily, my school had an advanced screening for this movie last night. This movie blew me away. Every actor in this film fits their role to a T. It has to be the best movie I've seen all year. Comparing it to "Silence of the Lambs" however is a bit harder. "Silence" is, in my opinion, one of the greatest movies ever made and "Red Dragon" is great but not quite that good. It is MUCH better than Hannibal however. Overall it is a great movie and I highly recommend that you see it.

OK, I did not expect the depth of Bergman's movies, or Fellini's great eye for misanscene, actually as more and more often nowdays I went to the local multiplex to be entertained, to wash off the sweat of dayly labors in the waves of a great maritime adventure... And what a wash-out did I get... EVERYTHING you heard about this flick in the negative reviews (and it's collected quite a few of those) is true, and then some. The plot is so formulaic that the characters look like the pre-production cartoon cut-outs that never got cgi-animated. Frankly, even counting some really bad "erotic" flicks on the Cinemax I never saw such a generic cast of characters... Hell, they didn't even have a single bad guy in the entire movie, everybody's "good inside" - which the director gets out of his way to impress on the unweary within 15 seconds you first meet them. The one-liners are soo bad they would make Disney's Alladin look subtle and sophisticated. The special effects... well, if you like big waves there is about 15 minutes of footage that'll make you happy. The first half of the movie barely drags through a set of "relationships", that are bland, predictable, and did I say - formulaic? See, these two guys are at each other throats on the land - I wonder what happens if one of them goes overboard? Anyway, I was leaving the theater thinking :Should have fixed that ice machine ahead of time, that'll teach ya!"

One of the annoying things about travelling overseas is that it can be quite difficult getting to see a movie that one wants to see. For instance this film opened later in Singapore and Germany than it did on Australia, however in the Netherlands and Belgium it was playing, and fortunately for me it was playing in English (with French and Flemish subtitles – which can be annoying as when the characters are speaking in another language you don't get the English translation, and unfortunately I don't speak Latin).Anyway, the film is set after the events in Batman vs Superman and forms another of the DC Extended Universe films (and Batman does make the occasional appearance). However, unlike the previous films what we have are basically a bunch of criminals, or should I say super villains, who are thrown together and made to go and save the day against some even more powerful supervillians. The idea is that now Superman has gone, but his enemies remain, then we are going to need some pretty impressive people to save the world.The problem that I found with this film, and it is a pretty big problem, is that the story seems to be way too rushed. In fact they not only rush through the section where all of the characters are introduced, but they then rush through the section where the bad guy is introduced, and there is little in the way of building up as to why this happened – it is implied but this isn't the sort of movie where things should be implied.They also introduce the Joker into this film and the problem with that is that it is going to be incredibly hard to be able to top Heath Ledger's performance – okay maybe they weren't even trying but the problem is that Ledger's shadow will always be hanging over the character and it is going to be a very hard act to follow. In my opinion I was never all that impressed with the original Batman movie, so outdoing Jack Nicholson (if that is even possible) was never going to be a huge task, not so much because of Nicholson but because of the material that he had to work with. However, Ledger defined the character in a way that it feels as if nobody can effectively follow in his footsteps.The other problematic thing that I found, which is generally the case in a lot of films like this, is that there are so many characters it is quite hard to give them the air time that they need, to the point that Deadshot and Harley Quinn literally dominated the screen and everybody else was simply there to make up the numbers. As such, with the film being rushed, and the attempt to create as much detail with the characters in the limited time available sort of resulted in a movie with a lot of ambition, but an execution that simply didn't work out.

A 19 year old American virgin arrives in Tuscany and stirs the souls of the inhabitants of the peaceful country household. A teenage art house film with interesting characterisation and some sensual moments. Yes, I remember the days...

I'm a big fan of traditional storytelling. What I mean is, the plot should start off with an inciting incident which introduces the conflict that sets the story in action. The plot should build on this conflict until it is resolved in the climax.But I felt like this movie was all over the place.The climax is a confrontation between Steve and Tony (not a spoiler, it was shown in the trailers), which could have been great if the rest of the movie built up to that. But the inciting incident started a plot about collateral damage, political will, government oversight, and the responsibility of super heroes.Even these themes were not developed very well, imo, as we jumped from random location to random location, the script writers seemingly caring more about groping for reasons to make these heroes fight than putting together any compelling narrative. Then, in the end, the conflict isn't even addressed or resolved. The climax is basically an unrelated (to the plot) fight scene introduced by a random video.I found it to be a messy movie and I was thoroughly disappointed.

I finally got to see this, after hearing so much positive stuff about it. People were raving about how it was the definition of cool. I believe someone even told me that it rivaled the likes of a Tarantino film. Well, having seen it, I can say that it's definitely got a lot less style than a Tarantino film, and none of the associated substance. It's basically an empty shell, albeit a pretty-looking one. The film has plenty of acting talent, but not even half of it is put to any use. There are just far too many characters, so many of them spend the better part of the film, following their initial introduction, sitting around, not really doing anything at all. Maybe the film should have been Ocean's Five instead... so we actually got some semi-interesting and well-developed characters instead of these cardboard cutouts spouting hip lines every chance they get. The dialog is witty and at times clever, but it's almost entirely superficial. The plot is decent. Another thing is that there's not really anyone to root for; it's a film about dishonest criminals stealing from other dishonest criminals. The pacing is OK. I found the film to be far too long and drawn-out. It could easily have been cut by at least half an hour. Once again, we don't care about these people. Submit any viewer of this movie to a lie detector test and ask if they saw this for the heist or for the characters. If anything less than 90% prove to have seen it entirely for the heist, I'll be very surprised. Then there's all the unneeded scenes, probably done to establish relationships(between the characters that we don't care about). Add to that, the plot holes and completely random actions of some of the characters. This film reminded me of a Danish produced film... Klatretøsen, or Catch That Girl, as it's international title is. It's a children's film, and I found it far more interesting, involving and plausible than this. Note that I didn't claim it was more entertaining. That's what this film is; entertaining. Nothing else. As a matter of fact, you should probably either see the Danish film, or the American remake(which I haven't seen... yet) as you'll probably find more substance in either of them than this film. If you insist on seeing this, just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed and possibly disappointed. I recommend this only to the biggest fans of the stars and people who look for an attractive film rather than a meaningful one. 7/10

This movie reminded me a lot of my favorite romance of all time-When Harry Met Sally. It had the same magical sense all movie long of building up to something wondrous and amazing that would melt the heart of even a guy like me who is a serial romance hater. Pshaw, I say! But unlike When Harry Met Sally, this movie just doesn't find "it". Romances are almost all about the feeling given in the one scene that is supposed to make it all come alive. While this movie fails at this point and leaves the viewer feeling disappointed, it is still worth watching. Good performances from Hanks and Ryan. It's just one of those flicks that leaves you wondering what might have been with a little more care.

God hates us all- this could be a much more appropriate title for this movie. If Mr. Scott could be so provocative with his over-hyped MEDIOCRE popcorn flick, let me be provocative at some degree as well: This movie is on the same level as AVP movies, except Prometheus has superior visuals.There is no story telling, no character developing, no motivation for characters, no explanations, whatsoever. One liners like "How this happened?" or "Why is this happening" are the most common phrases in the movie and they will never be answered. You may think Ridley want us to figure out by our own, but he is not, THERE IS NOTHING TO FIGOURE OUT. He simply just put together a incoherent mess. The background is practically same as AVP1, which I'm sure Scott never watched. Ancient civilisations that have no connection, yet share the same symbols. Same like AVP. Just like the stupid characters, meaningless rushed carnage in the second half of the movie, etc.The scientific "stuff" Ridley involved is just ridiculous for anybody over age 10. Same is true for the religion parts. If you have seen Alien and Blade Runner this movie can show nothing new to you. Those two are far more superior, top-notched movies compared with popcorn flick Prometheus.I watched it at the Premier with 5 of my friends. We all were growing up on Ridley's movies and Prometheus was a major disappointment for all of us. Considering that when the end credits appeared no single clap was heard, I thing we weren't the only ones.

There are a handful of movies that fall into your view through your childhood and they capture something. From that day ever after you look forward to being sick from school because you know you are going to lye in bed all day wrapped up watching these movies and stuffing your face with junk food. The Princess Bride is one of these movies. It is also a movie that when you hear your friend hasn't seen you slip out purchase a copy and slip it into their collection. Then maybe a week or two later you'll get a cool. You probably won't understand that much. Just a serious of inconceivable, my name is. hello lady. then a sort of mad laughter. At least that's the way it goes for me. This is one of those movies all right and it's the stuff of legend.

If you've seen the trailer, and you thought that the movie going to be cool.. then you are wrong!! This movie is anything beyond cool.. it's a MASTERPIECE! Now I'm not a fanatics of spiderman myself, but I do love Spiderman The Movie. I love how the movie team work on making such amazing effects(Spiderman's paradigm is the favorite effect I like about this movie)I also LOVE the story so much. This time, in spiderman 2, I can guarantee you that you'll be blowned away by the story!! There are some surprises that you never thought would happened! I am sooooo satisfied with these surprise! LOL~~This second movie also have very good sense of humor than the first one. Everything I see in this movie is POSITIVE. Well..except one thing, I'm not gonna spoil the story, but it had to do with jumping on the roof.

NOTE: Considering this film was released for a few limited releases in 2014, it is considered as a 2014 film. American Sniper is based on the book, based a true story about NAVY Seal, Chris Kyle. Chris joins the army shortly after a terrorist attack intended on Americans. In the NAVY Seals he finds that war is traumatizing yet addictive. In the film Bradley Cooper is absolutely amazing, in fact, the best he has ever been. The film was equally amazing. I believe it is one of the best war films of all time. American Sniper also does a very good job being historically accurate. Though there are a few obvious "goofs", such as the ironically hilarious toy baby's, Clint Eastwood has done an amazing job as directer and producer. This film will also (not like this matters) make a good profit considering his last film "Jersey Boys" was a kinda, sorta, a flop.Even though the film had a disappointing, yet satisfying ending, this film is absolutely amazing.

Honestly, I haven't been a big fan of 007 in the recent years. In my opinion ever since Daniel Craig joined the franchise there hasn't been a single 007 movie to would come anywhere close to those made back in the day, which were entertaining, fun and enjoyable. And its not just because Craig's portraying of Bond is totally different from what the previous ones used to be (wit, handsome and full of irony and humor) but also because with every next movie there is less and less sense in the plot. The most recent edition beats them all from that aspect. We can clearly see that it cost millions of $ to make it, given all the FX in the film, but I just wish a fraction of that money had been used to pay a decent script writer. The movie has got good cast but its not enough to cover up the overall meaninglessness of it, which actually lasts over 2 hours of screen time. Gave it 2 stars for cast, otherwise its not even a 1.