Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

OK, it's not really so bad that you'll fall asleep. Visually, it's interesting, especially in the first half of the movie. However, it's riddled with cliches and wastes the talents of a couple of pretty good young actors -- Vin Diesel and Radha Mitchell. Diesel also was in "Saving Private Ryan" and "Boiler Room," which are more representative of his talents. Mitchell was fantastic in "High Art" and "Love and Other Catastrophes." In fact, she was the reason I went to see this.

It seems that Mickey Rourke has made a grand return to the screen. After a decade plus of being in some of the worst ultra soft core pseudo porn (which wouldn't even get a Boy Scout excited)for the sex hack of all hacks,Zalman King,plus a few other films that were equally as bad (which either went direct to video or pay cable),he has regained something resembling a role that commands respect. Rourke plays Randy the Rod, a wrestler who had hit his stride in the 1980's,but had seen better days. His lifestyle had a toxic effect on the people around him. Evan Rachel Wood,who plays his estranged daughter,turns in a strong character who isn't on screen nearly enough (for my tastes,anyway),which could be one of her best acting gigs since '13'. Marisa Tomei plays a stripper who has a soft spot for Randy (and vice versa),but can't bring herself to date the customers at the bar she dances at. Darren Aronofsky makes a grand return to directing (after the somewhat disappointing 'The Fountain') with this film,adapted from the novel of the same name. Let us hope that Mickey Rourke manages to make this open window of opportunity work for him and act in some quality films again (even if he was baked to the nine's at last week's Golden Globe award ceremonies). Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film serves up some rather nasty language,even nastier sports violence that is at times quite bloody,a scene of pervasive sexuality,semi nudity & other material that is probably not too suitable for little Johnny

Easily one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. I have watched it at least ten times, and it only gets better and better with each viewing. Martin Scorsese is absolutely the greatest filmmaker of the last quarter century, and this film is his best. The story of how boxer Jake LaMotta watched his career and marriage crumble under the weight of his violent temper and deep-rooted misogyny is told with no punches pulled (excuse the bad pun), as Deniro (in what may be his best performance) and Scorsese unflinchingly explore what drove this man over the edge, and what ultimately may have pulled him back. The boxing scenes easily rank with the most brutal and violent moments ever put on film, shot in stark, unadorned black and white and utilizing unlikely sounds including shattering windows and animal cries to great effect. Thelma Schoonmaker's jarring, discordant editing in these scenes also deserves special mention. The scenes of domestic violence are not for the faint of heart, but there is really no other way to tell this story. If there is a more perfect exploration of why as men we act the way we do, then I'd love to see it, because this movie made me re-evaluate my life. 10/10

'WHIPLASH' was directed by Damian Chazelle and stars Miles Teller and Jk Simmons. ​In an attempt to become the next greatest musician, Andrew(Miles Teller) enlists at Shafer Conservatory, a New York music school, where he is brought into a local band where he meets Terrence Fletcher(JK Simmon), a music teacher renowned for his peculiar methods, who pushes him to the edge of his ability, mentality and sanity.Oh my god this movie is amazing. It's not a simple story of about drumming and some bloke with a pig fetish. It's a deep, heartfelt story about obsession and commitment, and what that can do to a man. Miles Teller delivers a career defining performances as Andrew but is greatly overshadowed by JK Simmons. Simmons take this movie from good to great and elevates it to amazing. Considering this is Chazelle's debut feature; it's a god damn amazing first attempt. If you've not seen this literal masterpiece; please, do yourself a favour and see it.This story is not just a simple story about music. I hate it when people say that. This is a dark story about how obsession can drastically affect your life. Chazelle has masterfully wrote this harrowing tale and if is his opener; I cannot wait to see his final piece. Combine Chazelle's awesome plot and screenplay with a fantastic climax and a brave, bold ending, and you have a freaking awesome drama that I see debuting a very promising career.To say that Captain Pig Fetish was anything less than awesome, spectacular and amazing in this movie would be an insult to his wonderful performance. He made this movie his personal pig and took it to town. Without him, I dare say this movie wouldn't be as good as it is and he definitely elevates this movie above everything else. Accompanying Simmons is the amazing Miles Teller, who plays his role of Andrew expertly and is the perfect protagonist for this movie. His more barren, emotionless nature really fits in with the themes of this movie and helps sell them to a tee. The 'chemistry' between Simmons and Teller is one of the best things in history. I adore them in this movie.This movie is also technically flawless. The cinematography is awesome throughout, especially the climax where the camera moves in line with the music. I think it's an excellent looking movie and definitely proves that Damian Chazelle has promise. Another note is how dark and bleak the colour pallet is for the costumes and sets. This might seem like a bad thing but I personally think it works perfectly in line with the themes in the movie.I cannot find a major flaw with this movie. Granted, there isn't really such thing as a flawless movie but I cannot find a major flaw that takes you out of the viewing experience. The music is excellent. I mean the acting is spectacular. Perfectly written, spectacularly directed and honestly one of the best dramas made in the past decade. Please watch this movie if you haven't, it's an amazing movie and you will definitely not be disappointed. I'd rate it a 10/10 purely for the pig line alone.

Before seeing this movie I was, like many of you, excited to see it from the "amazing" visuals we all saw in the previews. Unfortunately that 20 second clip was ALL that was good in this dreadful movie, and to be honest they should have just kept it to that 20 seconds instead of wasting 1 1/2 hours of my life. I should have counted but I think there was a total of 20 lines per actor in the whole damned movie. There couldn't have been more awkward moments between characters because of a lack of dialog and good acting. To say that you simply didn't care about any of the characters is an understatement. Does anybody even know what Malkovich's character was there for? I mean holy **** people! Please, if you see a review higher than 1 star for this crap, it's purely for promotional reasons!

Despite a great performance from Jim Carrey, this feels more like a "greatest hits" collection of Andy Kaufman performances than any serious attempt to examine him or try to understand him. Some people have said that by not trying to psychoanalyze Kaufman the filmmakers show admirable restraint and point up the fact that we can never truly "know" anybody or their motives. Fine, but in that case why make a movie? Without an angle or a point of view to it, a biopic is just dull. Books and/or documentaries remain the best way to chronicle a person's life - and in Kaufman's case, there are several good examples of both (books: "Lost in the Funhouse" by Bill Zehme and "Andy Kaufman Revealed" by his friend and writing partner Bob Zmuda; documentaries: Comedy Central's Salute to Andy Kaufman and, if you're interested primarily in his wrestling exploits and his bouts with Jerry Lawler "I Come From Hollywood" - and there are others as well). With so much information out there about the man, this movie just feels redundant and unneccesary.

I have mixed feelings about this movie. Let me point out that through it's portrayal of the graphic and disgusting nine minute rape scene and the stuff going on in the gay bar, this movie has learned me two things: One - never let your girlfriend walk home alone (never!)Two - I'm not going to a gay bar(never ever!)The movie is well made (you get used to the weird camera techniques after a while) and it presents a hellish nightmare that I have never ever experienced in any other film. The only thing I don't understand is why did the movie start at the end? I mean it's original (sort of) but it totally destroys the plot which would have been great if the story were told in a linear way.Verdict: High impact film that could have been much better if the plot was linear. Still a must see because of its life lessons. Score: 6.8 out of 10

The first time I remember a terrible Oscar Best Picture result was in 1988 when the excellent but schmaltzy Rainman, beat the far superior Mississippi Burning in most categories. A travesty of justice - surely it couldn't happen again? In 1997, it did happened again but this time it got a lot worse! Titanic got the thumbs up with its big budget and cute love story when in reality LA Confidential, a gritty film which is almost anonymous by comparison, should have walked it. Certainly one of the best and most intelligent films of the nineties by far, this movie included four of the best acting performances of the decade. Kim Basinger proved that she can act (and in doing so did get an Oscar), whilst a relatively unknown Australian Soap Opera Actor by the name of Guy Pearce waltzed onto the big screen for the first time and stole the show. Add to the mix, Russell Crowe as the cop who dishes out the beatings and the sublime Kevin Spacey and you get an intelligent American thriller right out of the top drawer.I saw this feel almost by accident as it was that poorly promoted and yet if I had a top 10, LA Confidential would be a 'must have'. Its like a drug - as the plot twists and turns the viewer is literally waiting for the next fix to arrive. And it does in spades.There are times when the Academy gets their selections correct. There are other times they get it catastrophically wrong. This is one of those times. Give an Oscar at the time to an unfashionable, unknown Australian who has graduated from Soap Land? - you can almost hear their screams!!

Went to watch this movie all alone to ensure that I experience every bit of Scorsese's magic. Turned out to be one of the best movies I have watched in recent times. In addition, this movie excels in the black comedy genre.Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio has taken his acting to a whole new level in this one and no wonder Scorsese is interested in casting him time and again in his movies. A perfect 10/10 for Leo. In fact, almost every single actor has excelled in his or her role. Particularly, I loved Matthew McConaughey's role. It was short, yet his character and acting was very cool. The chick looks very hot. Yes, I am talking about Margot Robbie who plays the role of Noami, Leo's wife. My rating for the whole cast is 10/10. It was perfect.Narration + Screenplay: It is good. Not excellent. I don't think it can be compared to other gems of Martin Scorsese. However, it was not bad at all. The team has ensured that we stay interested in the story, and yes, they have succeeded. However, there are just 1-2 instances when you might feel that the movie is a bit longer than required. Especially in the second half. 9/10Direction: Rate Martin Scorsese? You must be kidding! 10/10Laugh riot? Not exactly! Not a laugh riot. But, a very sensible black comedy movie. It doesn't make us laugh by showing chaotic or funny senseless scenes. However, the movie wins big time by bringing on the screen, the right amount of humor at regular intervals. 9/10Would I recommend this movie? Hell, yeah! This is yet another classic from Scorsese and Leo.I hope and pray for Leo. Wish he wins the Oscar for his acting finally and breaks his jinx.

I had a lot to consider when I went to see this movie this past weekend. I was hoping that they could get it as close to the book as possible......... you know....... to make CS Lewis happy. Now I haven't given up on movies based on books but they were starting to fail on me. After I saw this movie I now change that statement. This was perfectly like the book in almost every way. Watching this movie it was fun to cite some memorable scenes out of the book in this movie. The acting was great....... The White Witch was played out perfectly. The Lion was made and sounded like a god. The four children were each characterized differently to fit the book and make each character unique. I'm also glad the movie wasn't rushed. Having it 140 minutes for covering almost everything is better than them skipping big parts and making it only 90 minutes long. I'm also glad that they were able to really capture the land of Narnia the way it was meant to be seen. Also those fantasy characters..... like Mr. "Thomnas" were all well cast and played perfectly. I was gripped with this movie and once they entered Narnia..... I didn't want to miss a second. Overall if you are a fan of CS Lewis and and love his books..... you will love this movie. As a reader of the book I think they did a great job and I cant wait for Prince Caspian to get a movie as well as the Silver Chair.9/10

There is one word I would use to describe this film: bitter-sweet. It is not only an anti-war showcase but it also an amazingly detailed story of friendship, sacrifice and love.We follow Setsuko, a 4-year-old girl and a teenage boy named Seita. The relationship between the two of them is one of the most powerful I have ever seen on screen. Seita is a selfless brother, who puts his innocent, vulnerable and accurately child-like sister before himself, at all times. By the end of it, I found myself entirely invested and intrigued by these characters.The dialogue plays a bit part in this film. It doesn't rely on outlandish punchlines and doesn't try to be something it isn't, instead "Grave of the Fireflies" focuses on a much more delicate, minimal approach, the phrase 'less is more' springs to mind.Undoubtedly, it is visually stunning. The creators did not cut any corners in creating a cinematic landscape. The colours are particularly striking throughout the 90 minute running time. The vivid backgrounds almost have a smoothness to them, similar to that of watercolour paint. Bold usage of colour also helps to effortlessly blend the films darker, more sinister moments with the soft and profound moments. To end my review, this film is a triumph. It's not just a film, it's a lesson. It doesn't just teach us about the brutality of war and how it demolishes peoples lives, it teaches us about humility. Is it dark? Yes. Is it depressing? Definitely. Is it a must see? Absolutely.

Tarzan is a virtually perfect Disney film. It has fantastic characters, jawdroppping animation, and the right mix of humour, adventure and tear-jerking sadness. But WHY OH WHY did they get Phil Collins to do the "songs"? They were so pointless, bland and irritating that they spoiled some of the more beautifully animated scenes. Shame really, 'cos the film would have been perfect without them...

Any time I am about to see a film these days I check first on IMDb. It's pretty much guaranteed that a film with over a 7 rating will be a well made film and anything 8 or above will most likely be a corker. Liam Neeson is also a favorite actor of mine so I was really looking forward to seeing "Taken". But in this case I think it's way off the mark. The film struck me as shallow and totally unbelievable. I got the idea that whoever made the film had seen the Bourne Trilogy and was just looking for another reason to send a covert CIA trained psycho-assassin-with-a-heart on a stylish killing spree. The personal side of the characters is so unbelievable that I found I started questioning the rest of the file. For instance, how could a man who could happily kill so many so coldly in one scene be such a soppy hug machine in the next? It's not even the kind of thing you stop to consider in Bourne. In summary, I'd say watch Bourne and give this one a miss.

This is a classic example of neorealism and that's a scary idea because many "classics" are so dull. God save me from having to sit through "Ivan the Terrible, Part II" again. And "Pickpocket!" This one was shot on the cheap by Vittorio De Sica -- no professional actors, no fancy gimmicks, no back projection, no money, no nothing. Sid Caesar did a parody on his TV show. Yet De Sica's pulled it off. An unpromising story about a poor man and his little son searching all of Rome for their stolen bicycle on which their livelihood depends is truly engaging.It's post-war Italy and almost everyone is broke. People pawn their used linens to add a little to their pitiful government allowance. Nobody drives a car. There are a few crowded old buses and trolleys but the streets are full of bicycles. Antonio Ricci is lucky to have a bicycle. He's just found a job putting up posters and he's proud of it. His wife has sewn a military cap for him as part of a shabby jump-suit uniform. He needs the bicycle to get back and forth to work.But while he's slapping up a poster advertising a Rita Hayworth movie on the wall of the Hotel Florida, a young thief jumps on the bicycle and pedals quickly away.The rest of the movie follows Ricci and his son as they roam the city looking for the bicycle and the thief. They don't find it, not even with the help of sympathetic friends and the police. Finally, out of desperation, Ricci spots another bicycle leaning lazily against a wall, cases the situation, and takes off on the bike. He's caught by a crowd of pedestrians and released -- defeated, filled with remorse and shame.Two things leave an indelible impression on the viewer. One is the faces. Where did De Sica find these features? All of them are distinctive in one way or another. One, a musician, has a head like a chubby balloon and eyes that extrude from their sockets, as in a cartoon.The second thing is the tour of the seedier parts of Rome that we're subjected to while Ricci searches the streets. There's a tiny, shabby theater in which a handful of untalented performers are doing a clumsy song and dance number. There is a soup kitchen preceded by a prayer, and one of the bums complains, "I sat through the service; I'm entitled to the soup." A Thieve's Market, a neighborhood full of toughs, a decrepit police station out of Kafka, overflowing with piles of paper.In the context of all this local color, the plight of Ricci and his young son sometimes recedes into the background although it's never forgotten. By the end, you ache for Ricci to find that damned bicycle but, as with so many other of our visions, his wish is never realized.

Kingsman: The Secret Service distinguishes itself as being the first 2015 premiere movie of the year when compared to the other dull films that have been released so far. Matthew Vaughn's use of the same formula that helped elevate the status of X-Men First Class once again hits the mark in Kingsman. The charismatic swagger that both films share really helps Kingsman achieve the status of a new age spy movie. The addition of some witty dialogue, flashy CGI, and substantial casting are just the icing on the big ol' cookie. Kingsman is truly an awesome movie that serves as a surprise since the 2015 movie year is currently experiencing its low.

This is the story of the downfall of two girls who reinforce each other's bad behavior as they experiment with sex, drugs and petty thievery to support their new lifestyle.As the parent of two teenagers, this is the thing we fear. We know some of this goes on, but the degree to which it occurs depends on the kid. The story was certainly interesting and a bit disturbing. If you have kids that are soon to be teens, you may want to see this movie, but you may not sleep quite as soundly as you used to.The acting (well, I HOPE it was acting!) was well done. The two teenagers make an interesting and compelling portrayal of their characters. I have always admired Holly Hunter and this serves to keep that high opinion in tact. Technically, the direction, filming and editing are well done, but not outstanding in any way.This is not an outstanding movie, but a quite enjoyable with a good plot that plays out well cinematically.

So, there are times when you don't feel like watching a great flick. You feel like watching a dumb 2000s comedy or something like that. Last night I decided to watch EuroTrip as it was 6.6 on IMDb. The movie is disgusting, horrible, dumb and boring. The 'supposed to be' funny scenes aren't funny at all. The director and the screenplay writer must have been 14 years old. The acting by all actors is pathetic. Even if you are planning to watch a dumb movie...DON'T WATCH THIS ONE. 6.6? It should be on 3.9 or something. There are two or three 'sex' moments but you cannot waste 90 minutes watching this dumb flick. NO. It's just a dumb movie in which three guys and a girl go to Europe and all the crappy things happen with them. Every scene is basically a failed attempt to make people laugh. Even 12 years old children won't find this movie funny. DUMB DUMB DUMB and not at all entertaining.

In Tim Burton's Mars Attacks!, a colony of rogue aliens contacts the human race for the first time ever, only for the human race to discover that they are in mortal danger. Now however grim this premise may seem, it is anything but. With grand performances from Jack Nicholson, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Jack Black (for the first 30 minutes or-so that he was on screen). This film contains an onslaught of all-star cast members, and although some of them remain a bit too satirical through out the picture, performances from Pierce Bronson, Danny DeVito, Martin Short, and Jim Brown make up for such an unusual base of comedy(and what the hell, lets throw in Tom Jones just for good measure). The CGI (computer-generated images) was also quite impressive, from the onslaught of saucers coming to our beautiful blue planet, to the deliciously addictive need to want to see the martians' brains splattered across the pavement (or even in their own helmets, just for the sake of less clean up later on). Tim Burton has definitely made himself known for his darkly artistic style and refutable casting options, but the great deity of dark comedy himself has really taken a big leap from his usual vision, and took on a level of directing I have never seen from the great visual artist. So luckily, despite a barrage of cheesy dialogue made cheesier and a boast of generally bland characters, Mars Attacks! is comical, greatly conceived and in many ways is a step up from your usual martian invasion parody.

Lucky me. A couple of months ago, I got to experience the entire BEFORE trilogy and not have to wait 18 years to reach the (possible) end.When Before Midnight was released in summer 2013, I had a full day of BEFORE movies and was pleasantly pleased.The first, Before Sunrise, is the only one I'd seen before. A long, long time ago. I really did like it back then, and with this second viewing, I still admired it and loved how it holds up today, 18-years-later. I absolutely loved the dialogue, the originality and especially the camera following these two strangers who were destined to be with each other.The movie starts with the unlikely pairing of an American on holiday in Europe who meets his instant attraction, a French student. Both are on a train, but with different stops and yet, he convinces her to debark with him in Vienna. For one solid day/evening/morning, they literally walk and talk and get to know each other. Of course, they fall in love – so much so, that the "lust" they thought they knew was relevant at first, wasn't that at all. These two were meant to be together.It takes balls for Director and Writer Richard Linklater to pull off a 105 minute movie based solely on walking and talking and only truly starring two unknowns, but…he pulled it off. The dialogue was crisp, the connection and charisma was present and the originality of such a basic, yet deep, film was refreshing.People in real life only dream about this kind of chance encounter. This may be fantasy, but it's one that many, including myself, would yearn our whole lives for. If you don't get the sense of true love, true connection and true meaning upon the finale of this film, you might want to restart the film.I did laugh, I did admire and I did fall in love with these two. I even loved the ambiguous climax. This was a love story that you'd love to read in a great novel and cherish every moment.Finally, I loved the simplicity of this film. Kudos to Linklater for such a great experiment that worked. If there were no sequels, which are certainly very good on their own, I would be okay with how this movie can stand alone.

Confused movie History gets to be interesting, but it ends up in a confusing and meaningless way. When the movie ended, I did not understand the meaning. The people who watched with me hated it too. In general, the film could not show the one that came and nor pass on any message to the public.

This movie disturbed me enough to write an IMDb comment, which is probably an indication of above-average qualities.Negatives: - Jennifer Lopez character (and to a certain extent acting) did not seem properly developed, and some crucial info may have been lost in the editing. Despite radiating warmth and compassion she remains a puzzle, and not a terrbily intriguing one. - Ditto for Vince Vaughn, though I think he did a better job in terms of acting. - The computer graphics at the beginning of Vaughn's trip weren't bad, but far from the visual imagination of the other trip scenes, and mostly yet another extension of the old "2001" stargate.Positives: - Extraordinary visuals in terms of sets, colors and photography for the trip scenes, excellent on every level. The focus on reduction, instead of overkill, is especially impressive. - Awesome costumes and makeup. - Vincent D'Onofrio displays his extraordinary range as an actor once more. - The sense of closure at the end was unusually rewarding for this type of movie, as Lopez' resolution of the serial killer's internal torture is multilayered and ambiguous.The other aspects of the movie, such as the race against time, the Fed investigation etc, were neither particularly good nor particularly bad. The commercial considerations reduce the full power of "The Cell" somewhat, but then what else is new?I liked and was partially very impressed with this movie, though it was unpleasant watching - I mean, REALLY unpleasant - at times.

I'm late in seeing this one...I liked the movie, but had it not been a virtual clone of The Matrix, I would have liked it more.The dark noir atmosphere, the high-pitched strings, the music, Victor surviving off of tubes connected throughout his body, the gun battles & kung-fu fighting, tight leather suits, the silver liquid injection...Come on...Like I said, I liked it, but...I hear there is a sequel in the works? ...Underworld: Re-Loaded Revolution?

After two films that strayed away from the very first that made the franchise popular, producers to The Fast and the Furious (2001) decided to finally bring back the original cast and big name stars. That was one of their best decisions that have been made. It's baffling to why they thought changing the cast would really benefit them in any way. All it does is create resent and a disconnect with the new characters. Fans don't appreciate that. However, this is not the only difference brought to this ongoing series. The original cast returns but the story changes. Oh yes, there's still an abundance racing cars but it's for a different reason.The story reunites Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) again to help in the arrest of a Cartel who is secretly making drug shipments in and out of the border of Mexico. However, these events only happen under very coincidental circumstances. The writer behind this installment is Chris Morgan, the same man behind The Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006). Morgan's writing is articulated in a way that still incorporates racing but it's no longer about who's packing nitro next to their driver's seat anymore. That part, fans should enjoy and this is really its strongest element. However, what Morgan still can't accomplish is a narrative that is cohesive enough that makes sense in its continuity. Just why exactly was Tokyo Drift (2006) made if they planned on making a prequel to it 3 years later?Also, the character of Brian O'Conner is getting a tad redundant. He still lies and he drops the FBI after 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003), but now is working for the FBI of L.A. And this would be fine and all if he would stop being such a rule breaker. O'Conner just can't seem to follow the rules he swore to uphold. Why doesn't he just stop working for the FBI - it doesn't benefit him. Thankfully, O'Conner no longer has a love interest problem. He's stuck with Mia and that's it. Character wise, there aren't much of any new appearances except for the antagonists. Toretto is back along with his girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodgriguez) and sister Mia (Jordana Brewster). The only character that makes a subtle change is Paul Walker at which most girls will think he's the next heartthrob. Instead of having wavy surfer hair and wearing casual clothing, he now has a tux and a straight crew cut. Yeah, I could see why.The action is still fierce too. Instead of collaborating frequently on the town alleyways, the driving sequences also expand to broader horizons with larger landscapes and less tar. It'll give the audience something new to look at instead of the neon high beams and flashing traffic lights. The special effects also conform well to their surroundings; nothing looks out of place. Lastly, the franchise has finally found a solid contender to compose a score and that is Brian Tyler. During some very sentimental scenes, Tyler is able to emphasize those moments with the right emotion. Yet, Tyler is still lacking a distinctive theme for this franchise, which is a shame. He is an accomplished composer. Overall, a better sequel than the last two.With the original cast back and a story that involves more than just fast cars, this installment starts to resurrect what it had going for it from the start. Its continuity nonetheless is a totally different issue that still needs addressing.

What an innovative film!Contrary to one of the reviews which canned everything about the movie from the plot to the actors' singing voices to camera angles (by someone who, to me, is obviously not familiar with the live theater productions of this musical nor it appears the he has ever been to any), I find this movie version is a a state-of-the-art capture of one the world's great musicals for the cinema screens!The live singing is superb, showing the fragility (and flaws) of every performer ... and that's what a live-performance is all about! This movie captured a live theater production on screen for all cinema goers who never had the chance to enjoy a live theater production!Kudos to everyone involved! A must-see for all! And a must-buy for those who wish to have a copy of this masterpiece for a keepsake!

when i first went to the screening for this movie i was expecting it to be crap like the trailers suggested but i was surprised by how well made it is. this is an amazing movie that shows director Burton at his best. you all know the story by now so i won't waste time going over it. what i love about this movie is how they kept the things that made the original movie great and also added in their own wonderful stuff. the trailers and TV ads make Wonka look like an idiot or some freak but he's actually a pretty sweet man that's funny as hell. the kids are great too, although they get a bit annoying at times. danny elfman's music was also well done, it's not as good as the one he did for scissorhands but it still holds it own and the set design was amazing from start to finish.this is a great movie that's well shot and done in every way. it might just be the first remake since dawn of the dead that doesn't suck

This has to be one of my favorite horror movies, it's very unique, scary, entertaining, and most of all, original. The cast is very hot, and act very well in this film. It packs a lot of thrills and chills! I was never bored by this story, since it unfolded as it went, and allowed the viewer to continually keep guessing on the perpetrator's identity. That puzzle was fun, as was the costume in which the murderer exterminated his victims (fisherman's outfit, complete with hook...always seemed kind of eerie to me).The down side was that much like in SCREAM, the murderer did just seem to be around when the main cast was present, and always seemed to disappear (a bit too conveniently at times) when anyone else appeared. That aside, the movie intensified as it went on, charged through a quick 90 minutes, and left enough room for one and all to look forward to another hip, young sequel in the future, tentatively entitled I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER is a great scary horror flick, definitely worth a rent!

*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERSWhy this movie was made ? What's so interesting in Szpilman's story ? Nothing . I really mean nothing . They could make this movie with original character and it wouldn't change a thing . What's the point of the movie ? What's this movie is all about ? This is a story of one guy who survived war . That's it. The main hero is hardly a hero in any sense of that world . He's hardly a character. He's more like an object . Instrument that goes from one hands to another hands . This must be the most inactive hero in the history of the cinema . There isn't a single moment when he did something for others ( his family doesn't count). He's got no personality at all . The Oscar for Adrien Brody is a scandal . FOR WHAT ?! For one sad face through whole movie ?! He did convince me that he's a pianist . There's one good scene here when Szpilman "plays" on piano. It doesn't change the fact that ANYONE could play what Brody plays here . Even a guy from street like me. One of the most undeserved Oscars ever. The nomination for Oscar would be too much for his "performance"."The Pianist" wastes time to show us scenes of Nazi's killing Jews and destroying Warsaw . I'm sorry , but it takes much more to touch my heart than showing simply bad people doing bad things to good people . Also , since our hero is an empty character , then why should I care if he's struggling to survive ? I didn't care for him for a moment. In the end the entire movie seems pointless and empty.There is a great Russian movie " Sudba cheloveka" from 1959 . It tells a story about a guy that lost everything during a war. Yet , he never give up . He kept helping other people when he could , even if it could cost him his life . It's a hunting movie about man that survived psychically and emotionally a nightmare of war . It's touching and strangely uplifting . Watch it and then watch Polanski's "masterpiece" and you should notice how empty and lacking heart "The Pianist" really is. One more thing . Some people in Warsaw were against Szpilman , some were neutral , some helped him . It's sad that in the end the movie seems to tell us that a German officer was the person responsible for Szpilman's survival. Really ?! Another "Good Nazi " cliché in Hollywood movie ?! In the ending credits there is only note about what happened to that German officer after the war. There is no information about the Polish people who helped Szpilman . Why ? If there is no information about their post war life , the movie should inform us about it. In the end it seems that Szpilman didn't give a f*** about people who saved him . Talk about disrespect. The German officer didn't risk anything at all . The war was already over . The Polish people who helped Szpilman risked their lives and lives of their families. They should be mentioned here.We shouldn't make movies about people like Szpilman . It's not a bad thing that he wanted to survive. Everybody wants to life . Still , there is no lesson for us – the audience from Szpilman's story. We should make movies about Irena Sendlerowa – true humans , true heroes.I give "The Pianist" 2/10 , because of beautiful music (Chopin).

Starting well, if slowly, and not very coherently, the look and development is quite good, though much in the wake of Private Ryan, all those years ago.The narrative does the old trick of the new recruit and his immersion in war. The tank crew, tight and loyal, are all there to instill what is required to the new dude. It's not a new presentation; it's not bad and looks very good and the early battle scenes are realistic, in tension and dramatic flow.And then it fails. There is the final cataclysmic battle. Films like this can only go in two ways: either everyone lives or no one does. If no one does they are heroes and that's the formula here. What is quite repulsive is the length of the final battle scene which has an immobilized tank and its crew outwitting hundreds of enemy troops. It turns into mass slaughter as if this is what what heroism is all about but it also deceives the viewer - as all those 1950s and '60s movies did with German soldiers running into a hail of bullets as target practice for the smart US/Allied soldiers.It defies sense, and also the historical record as to how the German troops were led at this time, in their capacity to improvisation and battle tactics, which makes this final scene so completely sickening as a violent fantasy; it undermines the ideal of heroism and how battles are fought in real wars. It plays to the juvenile male spectator who is accustomed to the thrills of software games, not actual battles.In all, it's a Hollywood fraud, worse so because it starts well and with the virtues expected of the material, but leans to the cheap and moronic, and as such, deserves nothing but contempt.

There has been next to no fanfare for the release of this murder mystery. Which is surprising, considering the talent involved in front of the camera (Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen) and behind it (writer-director Taylor Sheridan). Fresh from joining the ranks of top-tiered screenwriters after the amazing one-two punch of Sicario and Hell or High Water, Sheridan continues his stellar run with a heart-wrenching study of loss and grief wrapped in a taut crime thriller narrative. Also having a crack at directing, Sheridan allows the snowy Wyoming setting to completely envelope the characters in a world that feels like it has no exits, both physically and emotionally. When this Native American community is hit with a homicide it feels like another tragedy in a long line of tragedies; their shock is replaced with deeper sorrow, their outrage is replaced with solemn defeat. Entering the scene like a fish out of water, Olsen's junior FBI agent Jane Banner must traverse the tricky cultural complexities if she's to understand the clues in front of her. Luckily she has Renner's local hunter Cory Lambert to assist, himself battling with a past family disaster. Renner and Olsen are both in terrific form, the former hiding his grief under a stoic veneer, the latter balancing big-city attitude with a genuine desire to find justice for the victim. Veteran character actor Gil Birmingham is also superb as a father unsure of how to deal with his earth-shattering loss. If this all sounds a bit heavy, well it is, but Sheridan's careful to inject a healthy dose of suspense and mild action to keep the drama gripping rather than overbearing; the finale in particular turns the movie on its head in an unpredictable but extremely effective manner. An intelligent, slow burning and provocative viewing that enthrals from start to finish, Wind River is an understated gem that deserves an audience.

I have seen this movie more than a dozen times, I often just play it on the DVD while I am doing something else... why? ....Well,... ...this movie is unlike any other one I have ever watched. You cannot really categorize it in a particular genre! It is unique, it is funny, the performances are outstanding and the story line is very original. The best thing about the story itself is its simplicity (for the lack of a better word). This movie does not try to teach us, or get a point across, it is just about dude's life who enjoys doing nothing. Now the Coens took dude's life and turned it to one of the funniest, wittiest and most amusing movie of all times. The soundtrack complements the story very well (the Coens always seem to have the perfect touch for their soundtrack choice) and Sam Elliot's voice for the narration was the perfect choice. That being said I just have to watch the movie again.....

Déjà Vu is the kind of frustrating movie you can only appreciate if you understood it, which isn't an easy task when you consider the great mass of information one has to process between the different timelines. And you tire so much trying to figure out what is going on and rearrange the different elements of the plot that it takes away all the pleasure of watching a film, and in this sense we can say Tony Scott missed the boat.Moreover, the script is extremely convenient when it comes to technology: even though the science fiction context allows a lot, some credibility doesn't hurt, the English director went a little bit too far here.Paradoxically, this movie undeniably deserves a second viewing, but one doesn't necessarily want to see it again, especially as the time travel theme has been the subject of a lot other better productions.

"Taxi Driver" is the classic picture that put the combination Scorsese plus DeNiro and as an extra Jodie Foster seriously on the map - all in one go. Supported by Harvey Keitel, Cybill Shepherd, Peter Boyle and accompanied by one of the last of Bernhard Hermann's brilliant scores the movie struck a nerve in the audience of the Seventies and paved the way for more explicit violence to come to the silver screen in the following decades. Which is not a good thing in itself, but an inevitability with "Taxi Driver" at the forefront. However, the outstanding performance of DeNiro and the painstaking perfectionism of Scorcese's direction make a psychotic taxi driver's prowling through New York's underground on the edge of reality absolutely worthwhile.According to screenwriter Paul Schrader his script was influenced by French existentialism, particularly its primary representatives Sartre and Camus. Indeed, the plot of Camus' novel "L'Etranger" ("The Outsider") parallels the movie in key points - loneliness, isolation and estrangement of the protagonist are enforced by the absurdity of the world around the protagonist and lead to a deadly outcome. The alienation Camus defined as an existential category, Schrader transfers to the urban jungle of NY. While hinting at a Vietnam trauma taxi driver Travis Bickle might be suffering from, this background is never actually explored, thus providing ample opportunity for the viewer to connect with the character. As such "Taxi Driver" is more than a movie about a madman. It is a thought-provoking and dangerous look into the abyss that lurks beneath skyscrapers and into our souls, a place where only we ourselves can answer.

The Lion King is a film that teaches us about nature's circle of life, as a lion cub born in the Pride Lands of Africa, learns what responsibility means as he grows up. Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) is the cub of King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Sarabi (Madge Sinclair) who is a typical curious youngster. His uncle, Scar (Jeremy Irons), is not happy with being replaced as future king and develops a plot to eliminate both Mufasa and Simba. In the meantime, Mufasa is teaching Simba about the circle of life and how we are all intertwined in it. This theme is seen in the Disney movie Pocahontas during the song, Color of the Wind, where Pocahontas (Judy Kuhn) sings to John Smith (Mel Gibson) how everything in nature is connected together. The Lion King's cinematography is very well done with the close-up shots of Simba showing his various emotions of curiosity, being scared, and sadness as his father, Mufasa, dies. The close-up shots, along with the superb visual effects, allow you to feel those same emotions. I found it very difficult not to cry when Mufasa dies. The special effects in the elephant graveyard with the fire, and perfect sound effects, allows you to feel how scared a young Simba and Nala (Niketa Calame) may feel. After Mufasa's death, at the hands of Scar, Simba runs away from his life at Pride Rock and grows up in the jungle with two friends, Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella) and Timon (Nathan Lane). They live by their carefree motto Hakuna Matata, as Simba becomes a young adult (Matthew Broderick). Just like anyone else, Simba knows he cannot live that carefree life anymore and must return to Pride Rock after finding out that Scar has broken that circle of life and destroyed the lands. Once Simba, Pumbaa, Timon, and Nala (Moira Kelly) return to the Pride Lands and win the battle in the climax of the film, the rain comes in and washes away the past, allowing the circle of life to begin again. Simba takes his place on top of Pride Rock as the new king. In the final scene we see the same as the beginning of the film, with the presentation of a cub lion, but this time that cub belongs to Simba and Nala. The circle of life has come full circle.

Four of us went to see it and all four of us could not stop laughing about how bad it was. It took almost 75 minutes to introduce the fact the kid was dead, it should have taken 20 minutes maximum. When the entire audience laughed at what was suppose to be the "dramatic" climax it made me feel better, I wasn't the only one that thought the movie was pathetic. We are going to use it as punishment for our kids, if they are bad they will be forced to watch this movie.For some reason I have to enter 10 lines of review for this submission to be accepted. There is only so much time I am willing to waste on this on, how about this, it is not even worth downloading and watching for free.

This movie or even better this trilogy made me feel so sad because this world is not like the one in the movie. I really wished that everything was just black and white. The good guys are the good guys and you clearly see who is evil. The actors really made those characters alive and gave them epic faces. Nobody had that modern-look. I also liked the music which brings the whole action to life. The soundtrack really gives me goosebumps. The scenes are so magnificent, even though they were filmed on Earth it seems like that is a whole other world. I will never get bored with the whole good versus evil fight, but I also don't like superheroes. And this movie has heroes who are not superheroes. Fights are depicted so realistically that I never once thought 'that would be impossible'. This is definitely a movie that falls into my top 5 favorite movies of all time and I believe I will be watching it time and time again.

This is a fantastic action/comic book style movie. Cybertron is a planet far away were a civil war rages on between Autobots and Decepticons. Soon this war is brought to earth and the action only gets better as it goes on. I was a passer by of the Transformers cartoon but was an avid fan of Beast Wars. I went to watch this film and came out happy it was action packed and had a great cast who play their own parts perfectly. Shia is fantastic as the confused boy who finds out his car is a alien. Megan is just as good as Shia's affection.Now the robots.Larger then life and incredible to look at, the robots my favourite being is Ironhide and Bumblebee while the decepticons are simply scary. Megatron is brought to life immediately by the sheer size of him, Hugo Weaving is menacing as always by proving the grim voice needed. Fantastic film to watch for the Summer (thats already gone)

I liked this film. I can see why people who are fans of the books (I am one too) might be annoyed with this film as it does take a few liberties with the plot. It misses a lot, and it would be interesting to know if people who aren't familiar with the books are completely confused by this movie. But then what it does, it does well: *Warning Spoilers Ahead* Harry's character is getting more depth, he's less of a good two shoes and more real. I am still not really believing his romance with Ginny, though Bonnie Wright was great. I just want to know what the hell was going in with his character at the start, riding around on trains and flirting with waitresses? Ron and Hermione's budding romance might annoy some, but as it is one of my favorite part of the books I loved it. It's awkward, sweet and it really manages to capture that strange and beautiful feel of teenage love. It might have been a bit obvious, but at least it didn't give away too much and it's still not right out in the open. Lavender is a bit over the top, but I think it works.Dumbledore is fantastic! Michael Gambon just pulls it out of the park and makes Dumbledore the approachable character we morn at the in the end. And cry I did, I would have liked to have seen the funeral, but I'm not sure if I could have coped with it... As a side note does anyone know what was up with everyone raising their wands at the end? It seemed a bit forced.Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy is quite possibly the best part of the whole film. The emotional change he has from cocky start to the terrified at the end is brilliant with the amount of time he had to do it. When he breaks down, well it upset me more then the ending.The journey with Dumbledore and Harry to the cave was great... I jumped right out of my seat when that hand came out of the water and I knew it was coming. Harry should have been immobilized at the end when Dumbledore was being attacked by Draco, because it is completely out of character for Harry to just stand there and let Dumbledore be attacked... especially if he was being attacked by Draco. But I guess they thought it would be too boring to have Harry frozen and invisible for the whole scene.All in all I enjoyed the film, it was funny, dark and entertaining. But there were a few things that really annoyed me: (Bare in mind this might just be my book fangirlness coming through) I didn't like the beginning. I liked the attacking the muggles bit, that was exciting and coolism with the effects. But they left out the first chapter, which is one of my favorite opening chapters in the books. The one with the muggle prime-minister. I know it's not really essential to the plot, but it works really well as a funny and witty catch up scene, which would help people to deal with the confusing plot that is to come. OK this one might just be me... and I would be willing to do with out it.What the hell was with the attack on the Burrow? I just don't understand where it fit into the plot. It comes out of nowhere and it leads to nothing. The only purpose I can see for it was that they needed something to break up Harry and Ginny's kiss. They obviously thought it had been too long without some kind of action. Which is cool, I get that it is a bit of an inward looking book (but if they can't deal with it in this one, how will they deal with the next). But how do the plan on starting the next movies, I guess they are going to leave out everything at the burrow and that's sad because I love a wedding. It was a silly and unnecessary waste of time that could have been used to flesh out the horcrux info.The last thing that really annoyed me was Tom Riddle himself. He was creepy, and when he was speaking to Slughorn I kept thinking; how do can you not see that this kid is evil. He like oozed evil! Anyone who has read the book will know that Tom Riddle aka Voldemort, was supposed to be handsome, charming and likable. In this film he was, there is no other word but scary.Most of the things I didn't like were problems not with the film making but with the translation from the book. So I think it's worth seeing and good fun.They are going to need two movies to fill in the plot holes left out of this movie, but I can't wait to see how they do it.

"Goodfellas" is a perfect film. You have it all. Brilliant, acting, directing & writing. How this film didn't beat out "Dances With Wolves" for Best Picture is the 8th mystery of the world. The sudden violence is brutal yet so poetic. But there is one big mistake people make about this film. In the Robert DeNiro video collection, you get "Mean Streets," "Raging Bull" & "Goodfellas." That's wrong. That's saying "Goodfellas" (like many other people say) is DeNiro's movie. But, it's not ("Taxi Driver" should've been the 3rd flick in the set). "Goodfellas" is the director's film (If you don't who it is, you should be ashamed) & Henry Hill's film. Ray L. give his career performance. I must say that after watching this and comparing it to his other works. His career has been a waste. Liotta should have walked away with an Oscar for his performance of Henry Hill. He was beyond perfect. But the greatest thing here is how Scorsese made this oh so violent story into one of, if not the greatest dark comedy, ever. 10 out of 10.

E.T., Harry Potter, these are the stories that perfectly capture the essence of being kids on an epic adventure. With Stranger Things, there can now be a third story added to that short but illustrious list. You root for these kids, who are not the rude cookie-cutter kids so prevalent in movies today. They are smart and kind and I was with them every step of the way; and the adult cast was every bit as compelling. The story is suspenseful and even a little scary at times, but it is also laugh-out-loud funny. This charming series runs the gamut of emotions, delivering chills, heartbreaking moments, an incredible buddy story, adventure, terrific humor, and lots of twists and turns. These are eight episodes of perfection, as far as I am concerned, and I can't wait to see where this series goes! My only regret is that I watched them all and can never watch it, for the first time, again.

World War Z is a fantastic movie with a very well written storyline and an outstanding cast.The movie was a very interesting turn for Brad Pitt,he hasn't done a movie like this in the past and while the story did sound really cliché,getting a great cast like this is what makes it much more enjoyable and the point that the zombie apocalypse story has been used several times before isn't a huge issue when actors as talented as Brad Pitt are in the main role.My only real problem with the movie is that it really avoids being violent,whenever you see a character get attacked by a zombie,you see very little or no blood,and the zombies design aren't very gruesome, which I thought lost the effect of the movie being scary,they probably had very little violence to keep the 15A rating.World War Z is a very enjoyable and action packed movie that I would recommend to all fans of action and adventure films. Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt),a United Nations employee is enlisted with a group to protect people from a zombie pandemic that is spreading quick.

This is a very good film for what (at first glance) seemed to be a "chic flik". I took a friend to a pre-release screening in the UK and was impressed by the turnout so early on a Sunday. I was also however pleasantly surprised by the film itself and enjoyed the performances from almost all the cast. Vinnie Jones showed a markedly softer side (yes it really is as soft as he gets) and Amanda Bynes was a cute and subtly sexy leading lady, which made her more believable as a sports enthusiast. Rather than having a drop-dead A-list stunner to pull the punters in with, this film gives us a royal flush of laughs and I will definitely pass on the message to my friends.On the whole it was a very funny and excellently made film which looked like a Hollywood version of the Brit flik "Bend It Like Beckham". It was well produced, and apart from a few flaws in the football side (considered below), it really surpassed my expectations. People were actually laughing out load at the screen (something that rarely happens in a British cinema) and I was actually joining in with them. A great film for all age groups and enough scantily clad bodies for the guys, but mainly for the girls.My little dampener on this review is that you shouldn't watch this film for the football, as some of the scenes were a bit unrealistic, especially when they had American Football style tackles in one of the practice sessions. Also *spoiler* the fact that Sebastian was benched and then Viola (as Sebastian) managed to come off the bench again seemed to confuse me as this isn't actually possible in a real football game in the UK, although it was glaringly obvious that it was going to happen as it was the only way they could complete the film. *spoiler*

This is where Anderson really got into his rhythm. Bottle Rocket was admittedly a little mellow; the characters were petty criminals but it felt like we were being pushed to like them, to embrace their endearing qualities. Here, Anderson toes the line ever so closely with Max Fischer, the 15 year old subversion of the teacher's pet who is one of the worse students at Rushmore Academy, but gets an A+ for extracurricular activities. He's a bit of a pompous asshole but he thinks he's god's gift to the private school; "We don't offer it yet," he so quick-wittedly corrects the headmaster. He didn't gain acceptance at the prestigious academy because of academic success, but because he wrote a "little one act about Watergate" and has since taken over the drama club. Max Fischer seems to think that because he is the president of so many successful clubs (in his mind), because he can speak a few lines of Latin, and because he brought Cross' classroom to life with her own little aquarium it makes him mature enough for an relationship with her. This is of course not true, but still he persists pass the boundaries of appropriateness. What Max seems to be doing iv vicariously overcompensating for his lack of parental support; he is like a stand in parent himself, giving haircuts, making conversation with the mums of the students, bossing around his actors like rowdy little children. He convinces himself he is not like the ramble that is Herman's children. His father is only a lowly hairdresser, so he constructs his own little world to replace his disappointment. He tricks Cross with fake blood in order to stage a moment of intimacy. When Margaret Yang casually admits that she lied about her science project, it visibly shocks Max into a change. Would Max, up to that point, ever admit something that he perceives as vulnerable and disarming? There is no place for weakness or underachievement in his life. When he joins his cast on-stage for the round of applause, with the pseudo-artistic broken nose for good measure, the moment is slowed down to soak in all his glory. When he gives a cordial speech to his new public schoolmates, the camera slowly zooms until he is the only one occupying the frame. This is the Max Fischer show after all.What Rushmore excels at is balancing the two dilemmas of Max and indeed the older Herman Blume. They both are chasing the same woman, but while their ages are years apart, they are both remarkably childlike and immature about the whole affair. They descend to tricks and sabotage and underhanded gestures in order to get ahead of the race, and are both quite self centred. There's a moment when Max introduces Herman to his father and his barbershop, after all the lies about him being a hotshot surgeon ("My father may only be a doctor, but we manage"), where Max finally shows some humility and unveils what his life really is like, and Murray's reaction is just fantastically telling. It's an obvious turning point for the man who seems to be a perfect prototype for an older Max had he not gone through the film's events - crotchety, lonely, for so long basking in the shallow vanity of his own achievements until he hits breaking point and begins self-loathing. 10 million? Guess so. It's not until Max admits his flaws that Herman can too. This is also the film where Anderson really embraced his own stylistic tendencies. The opening montage of all the different clubs Max is part of, with matching text, is as vivid and engaging as any introduction to a Wes Anderson character. There are only brief snapshots but he uses the compositions of those group portraits to their fullest extent in order to portray Max as a person who isn't in it for the enjoyment or camaraderies but for personal achievement. It is also his first film to use the intertitle to chop up the segments of time; parting stage curtains emblazoned with the passing months creates a sense of precise direction, as if it was Max overseeing the production with his own obsession with perfection and control. It just feels a whole lot more confident than Bottle Rocket. There's the lateral and horizontal camera movement at hard 90 degree angles that he has become know for; see the long-take follow shot unveiling Max's takeover of the baseball field as if he owns the place and is entitled to it, and his many lonely wanderings in the school hallways and ground. See how Max and Rosemary stare down the camera as they talk to each other, with a feigned sense of intimacy that I'm sure is very real in Max's mind. The slow motion and curtain close is used in the final scene. It is serenaded by The Face's Ooh La La, which I think is very fitting. This also marks, in my opinion, Anderson's blossoming ability to choose the most appropriate song for his films. Max is a different kind of mature now, but don't we all wish we could return to that one moment with the knowledge and experience of now? In his first kind-of-romance, he learns some harsh lessons, but is able to take those with him into the future. Glory fades, but underneath is a 15 year old boy with a lot more to him than just the clubs he heads.

I have been a Dodger fan since I was five years old. And I have the emotional scars to prove it. And because I'm a fan of baseball I've seen a ton of baseball related movies, everything from "Fear Strikes Out" and "The Stratton Story" to "Bull Durham" and "The Natural". Moneyball is right there with the very best of them. But Moneyball really isn't about baseball; rather, it is about business. The film uses baseball as a parable, much like Peter Brand, marvelously played by Jonah Hill, uses a video of a player who doesn't know that he has hit a home run to make a point for the Oakland A's general manager, Billy Beane, portrayed, in case you haven't heard, by Brad Pitt. The fThe film skillfully and poignantly demonstrates that, in business, if something doesn't work, you should try something else. And then tweak that something else until you get it right. And don't be afraid to challenge prevailing thought. In fact, this film encourages everyone to challenge the status quo and business as usual concepts on a regular basis. And it does so with an exclamation point. It also makes clear that you have to have a standard by which to judge your success. In Moneyball, Beane states that if the A's don't win the last game of the season, meaning the world series, then anything else they accomplish is meaningless.Moneyball's storyline is simple enough. The Oakland Athletics lose three key players. The team subsequently has a lot of holes in its lineup and little money to fill them. Brand convinces Beane that he can get better players at rock bottom prices by properly analyzing the right statistics. No other team in the sport had ever engaged in such analysis. Beane ends up challenging over a hundred years of "sound" baseball scouting practices that consist primarily of instincts and gut feelings. All of the performances in the film are extremely believable. Brad Pitt, gives a quietly effective performance. I admit that the first time I saw Jonah Hill in this movie I laughed. I mean you can't help it if you have seen him in "Knocked Up", "Super Bad", or the "40 Year Old Virgin". But I shouldn't have because I saw him in "Cyrus" and was impressed by his non-comedic performance in it. In Moneyball he does a commendable; but as it turns out, not an Academy Award winning job of playing a computer nerd who, in his first ever job, implements theories he discovered as a undergraduate student at Yale.Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as usual, is excellent as manager Art Howe. Has Hoffman ever not been stellar? Even in a movie like "Along Comes Pollly" he was effective. You would think that he would no longer accept supporting roles. But, to his credit, he did. And Moneyball is better for it.The A's don't win a world series with Beane as its general manager. But the Boston Red Sox, using the business model Beane developed, do two years later.As a die-hard Dodger fan, I hope the people who make personnel decisions for the Dodgers have spent the money to see Moneyball. But knowing its soon to be ex-owner (I hope), Frank McCourt, I doubt it.

Yes, funniest-movie-ever. But something else I'd like to point out, as many people seem concerned about the political correctness of the movie. He's neither making fun of Jews nor of Khazaki/Eastern European/Central Asian people. The first one, because he portrays anti-semitism in its stupidity, not Jews in their stupidity. And the second one because obviously he takes some stereotypes that people (i.e. Americans) have about other countries and makes a satire out of them. Its obvious they're not serious and real. Americans' reactions in the movie on the other hand, are very REAL and SERIOUS. HE'S ACTUALLY MAKING FUN OF Americans. It's disappointing how people cant see that and *spoiler* laugh the most at the scene where two naked men chase each other in a hotel, when there are so many more intelligent and subtle references in the movie. *spoilers* Not funny (poor taste) scenes include IMHO only the one where he enters into an antique shop and starts breaking things as by accident while the poor seller attempts to help him get back on his feet, and the pointless charade "Running of the Jew", where grotesque monster-looking Jew-puppets chase people on the streets. But all in all, genial portrayal of the fall-backs of American society.

Out of all the Crime shows, Dramatic, and comedic and reality shows that are on television these days, this has got to be the #1 show that has many packages added to it. It's funny in a "eyeball popping" way. I love the characters of Shawn Spencer and Burton Gus, because of their hilarious and goofy characters. Out of all the shows and video games, this is the one you should all be watching. With Shawn Spencer acting like a fake psychic and his sidekick, Gus, it packs a donkey kick in the funny bone that has you laughing your butt off. Literally. It's also a family-friendly television show that the entire family will enjoy. I always watch it with my family and we all enjoy it. Thank you, USA Network for actually having a long-lasting, have to watch television show. If it wasn't for Psych, I don't know what I'd watch on my Fridays.

Towards the anticipated finale, which could result in a climactic shootout, Christopher Walken's Hans, an old con-man who steals pets and returns them for money, turns to boozing screenwriter Marty, played by a subdued Colin Farrell, that psychopaths, real psychopaths not fictional ones, can be more tiresome than interesting.That isn't to say Sam Rockwell's scene-stealing Billy doesn't try his best to be normal – although he's the kind of person you shouldn't associate with: unless you need genuinely bizarre, and seemingly useless, inspiration for your screenplay. Marty's been struggling to get something on paper, and his next project titled SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS seems to be writing itself.This crime/comedy, channeling Quentin Tarantino, Elmore Leonard and The Coen Brothers at every turn, deals with only a few crazy people and the rest are in Marty's imagination. Scenes involving bogus situations are never distracting from the basic plot: a really bad dude (Woody Harrelson) wants his dog back, which had been kidnapped by Billy without Han's knowledge.Much of the film takes place in Los Angeles as the characters weave in an out of violent (some humorous, some not) situations – leading to a mellow stretch in the Joshua Tree desert where the three leads get unpretentiously philosophical.Farrell does a decent job in a thankless role as the main protagonist; Christopher Walken is sympathetic and, during moments of high tension, mesmerizing with his usual halting tone; while all the tasty dialog belongs to Sam Rockwell, who at times is too good a thing.But that's the underlying theme here – real loonies are a lot easier to take on paper. And while this motion picture doesn't quite know where or how to end, it feels like reading a book you can't put down.For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com

A movie who's hero is a depressed alcoholic woman who continually stalks her ex and his wife, how lovely. The whole first twenty minutes of the film is nothing but closeups of her face while she rides back and forth on a train drinks and complains about her dreary boring life. Of course later on comes the usual male bashing of the no good husband etc. The three of us were pretty much all Emily Blount fans (until now). It was so bad in fact we almost walked out about half way through the movie. Why Emily Blount agreed to star in this awful, dragged out convoluted so called mystery is the question. Even if it's free on cable, stay away from this BORING depressing film, you'd have more fun reading the obituaries in the newspaper !

It took me a while to see this movie, because i saw the title, and it just looked boring. WRONG. For starters, Adrien Brody was amazing. I would compare his acting with the like of Marlon Brando in The Godfather, and Tom Hanks in Forest Gump. He makes this movie, so great. I usually don't enjoy movies like this, like Schinldlers list i though was boring. This movie, was not boring. I think it was the way that i felt like i was the main character. The struggles he goes through are so great, you just feel like you yourself are going through an emotional roller-coaster. This is one of those movies that may in some way change your life. I definitely recommend it to anybody.

I watched Children of men the other night and was totally blown away. I read some of the reviews and could not wait to see this movie. The movie has an extremely intense beginning and doesn't stop. Although the movie is very touching it doesn't wimp out of the violence and action sequences. I was really shocked at one incident involving a car and a motorbike. I was glued to every moment of this film it is one of the best movies I have seen in a while and would recommend it to everyone. The last 30 minutes of the film are extremely intense and keeps you on the edge of your seat; the camera work is gritty yet beautiful and creates a really involving sequence that is enhanced by the long drawn out action sequences and camera work. The characters are also very original and have that key element that makes the audience feel for them. The acting is also perfect and surprisingly touching,you must see this movie to believe it 10/10

There are a number of reasons as to why opinion is so divided over the board in regards to this movie. I could state several, but I would rather emphasize the point that most individuals tend to overlook: this is not a horror movie. In fact, neither the movie nor the book were intended to fall into that particular genre, but rather, they were meant to provide a look into what the life of a vampire may be like.As director Neil Jordan has said, there is an inherent problem in this when it comes to translating the concept to a narrative: since vampires are immortal, the threat of danger is practically non-existent. As a result, we must settle for the emotional corrosion that everlasting life can cripple one with--a concept that is perhaps so farfetched to today's populace, who would rather identify with more realistic matter, that it becomes impossible to grasp and come to senses with. If somebody is going to be a monster, it is much more entertaining to make them out to be droning, thoughtless creatures, as opposed to the philosopher which Anne Rice argues develops over time. At the very least, there's action to be seen in the screen when this is the case.Given how much I adore the novel, I was surprised at the overwhelming response I had when I finished watching the film. Typically, movies based on literary works tend to exclude much of what makes the original material a joy to experience, opting to include only the elements and feelings that are discernible throughout as large an amount of viewers as possible. Yet this work manages to convey nearly all of the base elements of the novel, particularly in the mood and in the feelings of the characters involved. Lestat is as charismatic here as he was in the novel; Louis is still the very definition of detachment; Armand, the one who purports to know all, once again hints at the fact that he is as insecure as Louis about immortality; and Claudia retains the very essence of evil that was multiplied tenfold in comparison to every other character in the story. She remains as vindictive as ever, though to a slightly lesser degree.There were two substantial changes that were made from the novel which require mention. One is that Armand is now featured as an adult as opposed to an immortal with the body of a teenager. It works for the better, and did not irk me, but it simply makes you realize that out of just about any literary work, Anne Rice's characters are perhaps some of the most complex to adapt to film; imagine casting a six-year old girl to play the part of Claudia. The performance Kirsten Dunst gives is beyond belief even for her age, but it does bring me to the second point: it appeared as though Claudia was toned down just a bit from the novel. In it, she was constantly immersed in books, and in addition spoke with rather evolved vernacular, which gave the haunting image of a true adult trapped in the body of a child. In the movie, however, Claudia retains a large amount of her immaturity due to her somewhat plain dialogue, and she even resorts to speaking like a child in a few scenes, as when she says, "I shall never ever grow up." The innocence is portrayed fine due to the movie not showing any of her kills in action, but the character lacked a certain edge... which is surprising, considering how faithful all of her other action were to the original work.There remains not much to be said, other than to state that this is an extremely "classy" movie, with some expertly handled sexual innuendo that seduces just as strongly as that of the novel. Watch it knowing what you are getting into firsthand, and take delight in some of the most unique and captivating characters to be created in modern literature. And keep in mind that this story, as Anne Rice has stated, is more about us than vampires. It is a wonderfully introspective piece of work.

I somehow remembered that there was a Valerian anime series based loosely on the comics the other week. After watching the pilot earlier this week, I wondered if the critics were judging the Luc Besson film adaptation too harshly, and committed myself to checking it out before it leaves the theater (this looks to be the last weekend in my local area, for the most part).Anyhow...I'm regretting the loss of about $13.50.The anime series (at least in just the first 3 episodes) manages to capture quickly the dynamic between Valerian and Laureline. There's definitely chemistry between the two in the 2D take on the comics, and they're both charismatic characters (a sign of good voice acting in this British dub).The film? None of that is present. Both of the leads are terribly miscast. They both seem bored. The audience isn't really given any reason why the two should have any attraction to each other, and even if they did provide that backstory in the film, it wouldn't be credible with the sort of acting that Develigne and De Haan provide. B/c they weren't invested in the film as actors, I found myself getting bored and fidgety and even fighting to stay awake in the last 45 minutes of the film.The story isn't terrible, it's OK and is supposed to serve as a vehicle for the interactions between Valerian and Laureline.Special effects are a treat for the eyes.Overall...it's a 5-6. I wish'd I just gone home and continued watching the animated series.

Anyone who has ever known any alcoholic- even the worst lousystinkin drunk in the whole world- knows that you don't drink a fifthof whiskey and THEN a fifth of vodka. True alkies don't mix like that.There are many scenes like this that took me out of the reality ofthe film. Cage is fine in this, much less hammy than he usually is,but the real star is Shue giving her best performance sinceAdventures in Babysitting. I guess it's a similar theme for her. Themovie doesn't hold up well upon second viewing though, it's not aclassic by any stretch of the imagination, but an interestingcuriosity.

When young Chihiro moves from her town, she finds herself with her parents in a (seemingly) abandoned food court. When the parents gorge themselves on delicious looking foods they turn into pigs! Spirits appear and she is taken to the bath House to clean these spirits.This movie is the best movie I have ever seen in my life, the characters mesh well and the animation swept me off my feet! I am an anime lover myself, and I have the DVD set. This is a "MUST-HAVE" if you want an exciting and sad adventure, the American version even has some familiar voices!! (Susan Egan from Hercules as Lin??) This is a must-have for the DVD collector or even the people who look in your nearest movie gallery(c) and find it. This is for all ages, maybe not toddlers for it has some spooky scenes.10/10 flawless, I enjoyed it!

There are many interpretations to this movie. The first time I saw "Fire, Walk With Me", I didn't remember much from the series, so the movie didn't make any sense whatsoever. It seemed exceedingly self-indulgent and completely gratuitous in its violence, condescending, weird just for the sake of being weird. There was no "punch line", no explanation. I didn't realize the movie was both a prequel AND a sequel to the series, and in fact everything makes sense, except a few details, which Lynch was going to elaborate on in further films. Unfortunately, due to the poor response, that didn't happen. There is powerful imagery here, and Lynch has this unique ability (I'm referring strictly to the Twin Peaks franchise) to be incredibly disturbing on a visceral level without resorting to cheap shocks. I don't know how he does it. Some scenes are harrowing, with a genuine feel of terror and desperation. The whole experience is eerie and frightening, sometimes funny, especially in the first half, which has a different tone. The only problem is with Lara Flynn Boyle's replacement- it's awkward and difficult to accept another actress playing the same role. The film can be discussed forever (isn't that a hallmark of good cinema?), just watch it after you've seen the series.

This is a very fun movie. It takes you away from the real world for a couple hours. It has it all...action, mystery, and romance. The story was very original and spell binding. I will definitely purchase this movie when released on DVD. I highly recommend seeing this movie. You will definitely enjoy it.

Well this was a really fun show to actually watch. I guess part of it was because of the fact that it had Michael Jordan in the show. I used the live in Chicago so the Chicago Bulls were a bit nostalgic for me. This has an interesting show because it had a lot of the same idea's as Cool World and Who framed Roger Rabbit. The whole idea that toons live in another dimension then the real world.When you look at the old looney tunes and the newer idea of them, a lot of things stand out. First, the personalities of the characters had actually been altered to make them a bit more rounded. Characters actually care for each other even though they still fight between themselves. One that seemed a bit forced though was the new character, Lola. She didn't have much story line and served as a love interest for Bugs as well as the only female in a mass of male characters.I love how they pretty much brought Michael's family life into it. It made it really relatable because we saw how he was just like everyone else. He has a loving wife, a couple beautiful kids, and a wonderful house with all that he really needed to be happy. He has friends as well (Although many of them are rather famous like Bill Murray.) and does many things that we would normally do. Unfortunately, Michael is many things, but not an actor. He is alright but he doesn't seem to show much emotion when it came to the tunes and destroy some of the emotions in it.One thing that bugged me was that in the start of the show, Michael has turned into a ball and thrown around by the Nerdlucks. There is a point at the end of the show that Michael actually asks if he can do toon physics to win the game. If he was turned into a ball and thrown around, wouldn't he know that he can? Not only that, but he never uses it except for those two times.The animation is rather good though the characters seem more 3D then they have any business being I think. It just feels a little out of what we are used to. It's not all bad, but does throw the show off when they go from old cartoons to the newer CG stuff. When cartoon physics kick in with the live action characters, it looks rather off as well, and you can actually tell that it was pretty strange photoshopping rather then CG. It's OK for the time I guess but it's still really easy to tell it's off.There really were no problems with the voices. They were really good and had the same feeling as the older version of the characters. The Nerdlucks were done well, each having there own personality and some stand out better then others.

White Chicks is no 4 star comedy or no excellent movie but it is still entertaining and funny. When I was about to see White Chicks, I knew I didn't want to pay 6 dollars for a movie that looks terrible when I could go see Anchorman. I saw it and I thought it was funny. It's not hilarious,i's like trash funny. The Wayans brothers were great actually, I loved there voices and there laughs were great!! The story was low on juice and actually some of the humor was pathetic. Somethings in the movie are like, "What the heck did that come from?." Most of the humor was very stupid but the Wayans brothers delivered very funny performances.6.5/10

Overall, this is a good series. The acting is generally good, and the overall story is good. There are plot holes and inconsistencies that do bother. It also requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief. It is speculative fiction and it is not trying to be accurate science fiction, so you have to allow for that. If you can't get past them using hand-wavium and techno-babble to explain certain things, then don't bother watching this show, or any other show like it. But, if you can allow yourself a little imagination and creative license, then it's a fun show with a lot of drama.The drama is a bit much. It's a bit more like a high-school clique war than anything at times. The "Commander" claims to make decisions with her intelligence rather than her heart, but often the decisions she makes are just plain tactically and strategically stupid. Clarke suffers from making emotional decisions, and then turning around and doing the really hard things at the same time. To an extent, she's overly sure of herself and her abilities, and at other times, she's is so self- recriminating that it's sickening. I'm making this show sound bad, but that's not really my intent. The bad parts are easily overcome by the good parts. There is good intrigue, and good people do really despicable things at times and bad people do the same. We do see some redemption, especially in Bellamy. Bellamy turns into the most interesting character so far, although Clarke is obviously the protagonist. The complaints I've seen about the show being unrealistic are a bit insane. Sure, it's unrealistic. Do you really think that 4000 people could survive on a space station for 97 years? Do you really think that Grounders could really survive the radiation due to natural selection where the Mountain Men melt at the first hint of exposure? No, these things are not realistic based on what we know. But who cares? To nitpick on minutia and your opinion on how selection processes on the station are done for who lives and dies as shown in a few cases is to totally miss the meaning of the rest of the show.

This is one of those movies that everyone who failed Lit 101 thinks is great because its boring and they can't understand it, just like they found all those classical pieces they read and never understood. Well, just because it's boring and you can't understand it doesn't make it good. It is, in fact, a genuinely awful film that claims to be based on the Odyssey (by Homer). Right, just like Charlie Manson is a Christ figure. One bright spot: the movie is perfect for George Clooney -- it's so bad, one hardly notices that he, as usual, displays no acting talent.

The movie Wall-E is a touching work of science fiction that manages to bridge the gap between child and adult. Wall-E is left abandoned on a decrepit planet Earth, with the directive of compacting and organizing the leftover trash. Having been alone for a great amount of time, his entire reality and purpose going to change.Bringing into perspective moral conflicts of consumerism and big business, the film displays an ominous conclusion for the Earth we live in today. All this stands in stark contrast to the robot himself, who demonstrates a loving personality and emotions such as curiosity, empathy, and loneliness. It is hard not to be drawn in to Wall-E's charm.Viewers will undoubtedly be taken by the stunning graphics, amazingly detailed scenery, and creative characters. But for those looking for more, you will find a thought-provoking story that brings into question our behavior and responsibility on this planet. Definitely recommended for young and old alike...

In the past the world has chosen space flight crews from military pilots, scientists or civilian engineers of the highest maturity and experience. People that were selected for remaining cool under the worst circumstances and would "continue the mission" no matter how difficult it became..."Sunshine" is what would happen if you chose the crew from anxiety ridden film school grad students.They run around in a dither from the start making silly mistakes left and right. But, they look very soulful the whole time and aren't afraid to burst into tears at the slightest provocation. Appropriate behavior for an acting class but not for life-or-death missions.I think this is truly why the first Icarus mission failed. A soufflé' fell and the crew hyperventilated to death. On the good side, the creators manage to get a tremendous amount of visual beauty on the screen for a comparatively small budget.As one crew member says "I don't know how to do it, just do it". This seems to have been the main directive for creating the movie. With regard to some of the super-positive reviews...No, this is not one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever. If you were so stoned that you couldn't follow a plot anyway, you might really enjoy yourself. Then again, if you were that stoned, you'd probably enjoy cleaning the basement.This is one where the visuals and music stand out, in a big way but, the characters and the story fall short.

I loved this movie. My favorite part about this movie is the idea - being true to ones feelings, being destroyed by pain to the point of loosing oneself and having the strength to finding it again; having the strength and incredible will to let go and move on. I find it deep and insightful.I also like the presentation of this idea - in a simple, very honest way. That's why I think, the symbolism they used fits in so well, even though it's a bit obvious - the heavy bag she carries at the beginning of the journey, bleeding feet, getting new shoes that fit, throwing up (as letting all the bad things out) and coming to the gods bridge. All of these are classic, obvious symbols, which are in tune with the simpleness of the presentation of the idea. This brings me to another point I like about this movie, how it contrasts this very simple plot and very simple presentation to very complicated 'things' inside the main character. I also have to mention the script, because its loooong time since I have seen/heard such a good script - communicating the drama of one's life without overdoing it. And OK, there are some factual errors in this movie, but they are not so important and Witherspoon did a great job as an actress and a producer. For me it's her best movie so far. So to sum it up - strong drama, in simple, honest presentation, inspiring to return to your good self, no matter what may happen. The way we deal with our feelings, is the way we leave.

I spent the afternoon getting drunk in town and finally staggered home inebriated. I had a great evening and thought I would finish the night with an entertaining chuckle at this summer's well-known comedy. Suffice to say, I was extremely disappointed and can honestly say that i did not laugh once throughout the entire movie (even in my merry state!). My judgement in not against the actors, I have admired all the cast in previous films. It was obvious that the script was well below average standard.jeez! watching this was a huge come down and sobered me up in 30 mins! I just watched the rest of the film to be polite. And honestly... I regretted it afterwards!

This is simply a masterpiece from the very beginning you're hooked its not like Halloween or interview a vampire where there are a some truly horrific moments and then other parts which are just plain boring actually i apologise Halloween has no boring scenes but interview a vampire is boring and i hate it anyhow back to the shining. This whole film is fantastic the opening music is very fitting and jack Nicholson played a memorable role as jack Torrance, i don't know who the butler bloke was who persuaded jack to kill his wife but he did the part very well the ending in the maze is brilliant the perfect setting for the chase between jack and his son. I don't of many Kubrick films except the ones everyone has seen or heard of (clockwork orange,full metal jacket and this). There is only one thing I'm really annoyed about that involves this film and thats those idiots at the golden rasberry awards who gave Shelly duvall worst actor and Stanley Kubrick worst director first why put them as an option and why the hell did people vote for them whoever voted should be found and put in that hotel. I give it 10\10 great film.

Stargate's plot, acting, and score all contribute beautifully to the mysterious ambiance that is the essence of this enthralling and suspenseful film. While your disbelief definitely needs to be suspended to cover some inconsistencies, the atmosphere and action of the movie make it worth your while. Not only does Stargate combine science fiction with history, but it weaves them together in a way that remains exciting the entire film, despite major changes of environment. Upon hearing some major elements of the film, one might think that aliens, ancient Egypt, and atomic bombs could only come together in some kind of bizarre montage. However, this film is strongly plot-driven, and while this does make it typical in some respects, the plot itself is remarkable. Hardly artsy, the score is in many places Hollywood-ish, presenting emotion in a straightforward manner, yet it too is enjoyable. None of the acting is spectacular, but this is made up for by the characters' wholesome qualities and ability to change (however slightly) over the course of the movie. To summarize, while nothing in the film is a complete divergence from the standard, it follows the Hollywood style in a manner that is original enough to make a solid and enjoyable adventure. This is the actualization of the potential within the Hollywood film "template": a good story told well in all respects. [9/10]

Well, after seeing Pirates II, I didn't think it was possible for III to be any worse.... I was wrong. This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I understand that some movies are made just for ridiculous, but fun, action sequences and little or no plot line, and you can definitely tell which movies those are, but this one tried to have a decent plot, and failed miserably. Yes, the action sequences were fantastic and full of some of the most ridiculous stunts imaginable, but they in no way saved the horrible attempt at a plot line. With hardly any character development, far less Jack Sparrow than there should have been, the abandonment of the love triangle, the overly-dramatic attempt for an epic, and the complete lack of trying to be at least somewhat historically correct, the writers have caused cinema to reach a new low.The first problem with the movie is that Jack Sparrow isn't seen for half an hour. Johnny Depp is pretty much what has made the Pirates films. And when you do finally get to see him, he has been downgraded to the status of comic relief, rather than the humorous hero he has played in the past. It is because of this that you actually start to wish that you see less of him. The corny, one-line jokes that just seem to perpetually flow forth from his mouth get old very, very quickly.The second problem is, of course, the total lack of true interaction between the characters. Most of their speech is devoted to furthering the already failing plot, and the little that is actual development of their relationships is poorly written. Though I hated the idea of the love triangle between Will, Elizabeth, and Jack introduced in Pirates II, I was sad to see them completely abandon that idea, acting almost as though it had never happened.The main problem that I had with the plot for this film is that it never really settled down. It was either moving forward far too fast for most of the audience to keep up with, or so dead still that half the audience was falling asleep (though the latter was far rarer). Plus the introduction of so many different plot devices and magic just made the story seem so implausible. I mean, I am a firm believer in the willing suspension of disbelief in small doses (such as the amount of disbelief I had to suspend in the first film), but if I was going to actually enjoy this movie, I would have had to have suspended it for almost the entire length of the film, and that's hard to do for near three hours.And finally, the first film, as far as I know, was pretty much on par in terms of historical accuracy and pirate mythology. That is, it was very true to the era it was based in, and didn't have to add in all sorts of fantastical, magical things to give the film a sense of adventure. The only magic involved was the curse of the medallions. Which, while it may have dominated most of the plot, was rooted in some history and was presented in a plausible way. For that, I can suspend my disbelief. But when they start giving physical manifestations to Davy Jones (granted that was introduced in the second film, but still) and start calling Greek sea-nymphs (Calypso) Pirate goddesses; I'm sorry but I just can't do that. Not to mention them trying to claim that the pirates, as treacherous and murderous as they were, were actually all united under one flag is just ridiculous. No historical value (and very weak story value) whatsoever.All in all, this film surpassed how terrible I expected it to be so horribly that I am honestly considering walking back to the theater and asking for compensation for the three wasted hours of my life.

I don't know whether it's the genre and there are just limitations as to what a film-maker can do (sigh, it just seems to be that way the last 40 years) but to go to such lengths to make a film look this good and deliver an okay story line doesn't make much sense. Now I have to say that I appreciate that this wasn't a typical annoying hapless horny teenager slasher flick, filled with characters you actually don't mind getting murdered and could care less about, but it smacked something of like "The Haunting" and didn't seem to break any new ground. It could have come out on television and I think a 10 year old could handle most the "frightening" moments. Del Toro can be applauded for most his work, but this was just okay and didn't live up to the hype. And actually, as to the hype, it was said Stephen King called the film "gorgeous and just -explitive- terrifying", and said it "electrified" him, but that sounds just a little over the top coming from a guy who wrote books that had me frightened of a ticking clock in my parents little house after reading The Shining from cover to back in 48 hours. There is nothing terrifying about this movie. Richard Roeper of Chicago Sun-Times wrote that "Crimson Peak is a gorgeous mediocrity", and that is basically what I felt after seeing this on Blu-Ray. What an incredible picture and how just okay the story. And I could only deduce, like most films today, that it was probably made for the 13- 18 year old crowd looking for something to do on a Friday night. Worth seeing once to see on Blu Ray on your HD TV, to see all those incredible colors

Went into see this movie expecting exactly what i got, just a way to kill 2 hours eating food that makes you fat. anyway, onto the movie, this movie is one of those movies where you know the ending of the movie at the first 5 minutes, anyone who even suggests this movie has a decent plot line should be shot in the head. the effects are OK, in fact, the sound and effects are the ONLY thing that makes this movie somehow worth go seeing on a theater, if it wasn't for them i'd give it a "rental, MAYBE". the story is the biggest joke in the movie, and not a very fun one.. you know from the get go who will live, and who will die, and from the minute my girlfriend and i saw a dog in the movie we turned away from the screen, looked at ourselves and said: "many people will die, but that dog WILL survive" that's how predictable it is, and if you haven't noticed by now, in EVRY disaster movie the dog lives! there was rarely laughter in the theater, but when the news guys said "Mexican officials have closed the border" everyone laughed their butts off, living in Mexico, we found that very amusing, it would NEVER happen, we're not that kind of people =). but even MORE funny was when they said "Mexican officials have opened the border again, in exchange of making them debt free" now THAT had the entire theater kicking the floor in laughter, that would NEVER happen even if the entire US was in the verge of that disaster! the politics in the movie were for the most part, good in idea, but terrible in execution, the movie seems to want to make people realize how bad the US government currently is, but they could've done a far better job at doing it (talking about the vice president here, that resembles it's RL counterpart a lot... but for the president they ditched Bush and they put a hero instead, wich seemed to be from an opposing party...) anyway, this movie is nothing more than a decent popcorn movie, nothing more, if you haven't seen shrek 2, go see that one instead and you can thank me later.

This incident-packed home-invasion thriller features a psychopathic nanny and a gullible suburban couple in a disturbing tale of revenge, deception and gross professional misconduct by two people who abuse the trust of others for their own selfish purposes. It's also a drama that seems to have a momentum all of its own as every development follows on so naturally from whatever precedes it. This characteristic is tremendously effective in driving the action forward and building up the suspense that makes "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" so gripping and enjoyable.Claire Bartel (Annabella Sciorra) is a middle class housewife and an expectant mother who, after being molested during a routine examination by her gynaecologist, Dr Victor Mott (John de Lancie), files a complaint with the appropriate authority. Her action leads to a number of other patients making similar charges and the shamed doctor committing suicide. The circumstances surrounding Dr Mott's death leave his pregnant widow homeless and penniless and the trauma she experiences results in her suffering a miscarriage and having to undergo a hysterectomy. She regards Claire as being responsible for all the terrible things that have happened to her and becomes desperate for revenge.Some months later, the unhinged Mrs Mott, who now calls herself Peyton Flanders (Rebecca De Mornay) is hired by the Bartels as a nanny for their baby son Joe and this gives her the opportunity to put a plan into action to destroy Claire's comfortable life. She secretly breast-feeds Joe and causes Claire some concern when he refuses his mother's milk. Peyton also forms a strong bond with the Bartels' five-year-old daughter Emma (Madeline Zima) and turns her against her mother as well as pulling a few strings to give Claire the impression that her husband Michael (Matt McCoy) is having an affair with her closest friend Marlene (Julianne Moore).Peyton's mental state deteriorates steadily during her time at the Bartels' home as she tries to replace Claire in the family by setting a trap for her to have a fatal accident and attempting to seduce Michael. The Bartels take a long time to discover the cause of their problems and even when they do and dispense with Peyton's services, further violent developments follow.Peyton Flanders is a predatory and manipulative femme fatale who outwardly appears to be friendly and attractive but is actually very determined in pursuing her own evil agenda. Rebecca De Mornay, in a genuinely stunning performance, displays all these characteristics magnificently and is very subtle in the way that she displays Peyton's dangerous combination of sweetness and insanity. She also impresses in a couple of scenes where she threatens the Bartels' mentally challenged handyman, Solomon (Ernie Hudson) and a boy who'd been bullying Emma.In a movie of predominantly very good performances, Julianne Moore also stands out as Marlene, the tough, no-nonsense businesswoman who discovers Peyton's true identity and also gets some of the most memorable lines. She advises Claire to "never ever let an attractive woman take a power position in your home" and on another occasion remarks that "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world"."The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" is exceptionally entertaining and was understandably a great commercial success.

I believe Jim Lovell made a cameo at the end of the movie Apollo 13. The shot of him is very brief. Once the capsule has landed in the water and the crew is then is hauled up to the waiting helicopter. The helicopter then lands upon the aircraft carrier Iwo Jima. The three leave the helicopter and are greeted by the crew of the carrier. During the time that they are being greeted you will see several men in white uniforms. You will see one man in the scene pat Hanks character on the shoulder, the greeting is longer than the others. That is who I believe is Jim Lovell is standing to the left of Hanks in a profile shot. Next time you watch the movie give it a glance and see what you think. I researched the real Apollo13 and photos of the actual astronauts.Thats how I came about to recognize who I think is Lovell in the movie.

I'm in love with this show! That's the first thing I'm going to point out, the second one is that I am a fan of this TV show without any knowledge of the city, the plot, the characters, overall the comics, just it happens before Batman arrival's. In general, I saw a lot of fans criticize the fact of some characters appearing destabilizes the time line, the «crime of the week» material, overall I guess a lot of people are thinking that Batman are going to appear in this show and all that. But I'm going to admit it that I don't care if Batman is going to show up, or anything, I'm really in love with the «crime of the week» material, I love these type of shows (Castle, CSI, NCIS, etc). I really like Jim Gordon, and I'm so excited to see how he is going to handle the second season, because season one, was breathtaking for me. Some good twists, full of battles between good and evil, and always lead us to a new level of insanity. I love this show, I'm really excited with the second season arrival and I really want to know how the writers are going to explore new plots, because now the they have freedom to do what they want with the characters and don't have to be restricted to the story, to the comics.

The title refers to the Death Wish actor of the same name which is used by Michael Peterson, Britain's most notorious prisoner. Having spent 30 of his last 34 years in solitary confinement; with good reason, he is absolutely irredeemable.Tom Hardy gives one of the most memorable performances I have ever seen. You will believe he really is the psychopathic real-life man in jail.The style is reminiscent of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, even using music in similar manner. This is not easy viewing, as the violence and brutality is unrelenting, graphic and frequent. Mr Hardy is also totally nude more than once. The actor is intimidating, menacing, and at times darkly funny.There is no happy ending and this is not a light hearted feature for uplifting the human spirit but it is still well worth your time.

Hundred of years of tradition destroyed in one and a half hour. Congrats, USA, you did it again!Firts of all, krampus is a traditional demon in Alpine region (Slovenia, Austria, Germany and northen Italy) and he accompanies St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas is not the same as Santa Clouse, we celebrate St. Nicholas on the 5th of December. He gives gifts to the good children. The one that were bad, can be taken by krampus and brought to hell... In Slovenia, we dress up on the 5h of December, one person as St. Nicholas, a few as angels to escort him, and then around 10 as krampus. We go around the village, and give gifts to the kids, when we visit their houses. The ones, dressed as krampus, scare the children, sometimes take them outside, if the refuse to obbey. The kids are so scared of the krampus, they actually deserve the gifts, because they wait in fear, for when St. Nicholas visits them with his krampus. As a child, i was terrified of krampus, and i tried my best to be good, so the krampus would't take me.

Sure, this isn't the conventional baseball film. In fact, baseball doesn't really have to be a part of it. This film is about growing up. It's about finding yourself alone in a new town and hoping to make friends. Scotty Smalls (Tom Guiry) is a young boy most of us can identify with. Even if we'll never picture ourselves as Smalls, we can at least say we've met a naive kid like him.Scotty moves to the Valley with his mother and stepdad (Karen Allen and Denis Leary, who are little seen in the film but who are the primary adults here) and plans to spend his summer alone in his room reading and toying with his erector set. When Mom pushes Scotty to go out and make friends, Scotty listens. Reluctantly. He stumbles upon the sandlot one day and finds eight young boys just like him. They never play a real game, just one long never ending practice. These will be his friends for the summer, and one will be there for the rest of his life.Of course, this film works better with baseball. It's America's pastime and one of our country's creations, something the US will forever be associated with. Even if you never grew up playing or even liking baseball, you'll love this movie. There are exceptional performances by our young players, from the portly Hamilton Porter (Patrick Renna) to the handsome Benny Rodriguez (Mike Vitar). These boys aren't ballplayers, they're kids just like we are or once were. We grew up with Squints (Chauncey Leopardi) and Smalls. Like its predecessor "The Bad News Bears," there isn't enough time to flesh out each youngster, but the focus here is on the two main characters, Scotty the narrator and Benny his older and wiser friend.Benny's a big brother to Scotty. He teaches Scotty how to throw and field, gives him a new mitt and cap, and even casually tells his new friend to toss Scotty's trademark puke-colored fish cap into the fireplace. This friendship is the one we all know will last throughout the film.Sure, this isn't "Field of Dreams" or "The Natural" or even "Major League," but it's an adequate portrayal of growing up in the sixties, having to tell little white lies to fit in, and sticking up for one another whenever possible. In all, there is only one game against an opposing team, a "real" ballclub complete with uniforms, stirrups, quality equipment (batting helmets, for one), and a field and scoreboard. This scene is great in that it shows that it doesn't take a lot of $$$ to make a quality ballteam.James Earl Jones makes a memorable cameo in an otherwise "kid flick." The narration is fine (reminiscent of TV's "The Wonder Years"), the performances by the young actors promising, and the story/plotline, from beginning to end, is adequate to keep your interest. Most of my friends who have seen this film have said that the most memorable scene is the poolside scene, with lovely actress Marley Shelton portraying Wendy Peppercorn, the object of Squints' affections and resident lifeguard. Though this scene is memorable (in all its possible ways), the true baseball game occurs on the only night game, the Fourth of July game, where the fireworks in the sky light up the sky so much that it's possible to play a game in the sandlot.

We have had so many batmans that rehash the same stuff, car chases, explosions, and much computer enhances cities and ranks of people that is is wonderful to see the beginning of Batman told as if no one had any knowledge of his origin. Then we proceed with the saga like we want it to go and it is rewarding and satisfying. But at the end it just couldn't last and we get the 2005 enhancement with too much computer work on screen and explosions that blot out the story. The cast is way beyond hoping and is superlative. Michael Caine in a Batman movie!!! And others to match suit. This is a show worth watching if you're a Batman lover. It satisfies. If you must have noise, car chases, etc., it has that but not enough to satisfy those who like cataclysm. I liked it. And I'm 83 years old.

I can't even begin to say how much I loved this movie! Everything about it is epic, from the story to the characters (Durotan was def my favourite) to the amazing world of Azeroth and the special effects!I read the official reviews before seeing the film and I have to admit I went to the cinema not knowing what to expect and even ready for a let down,but the film is far from this. The story is well explained, it's fun, it's dramatic! It's pure fantasy amazingness and does the game justice!I am honestly gutted the official reviews are so bad because I simply don't understand why! Fantasy lovers, WoW players and people who have not encountered the Warcraft universe before can all enjoy it all the same.It's an amazing piece of work! Really excited about the sequel!!!

This has got to be the ultimate con man movie this film definitely has the best story of the year and deserves a best adapted screenplay Oscar. This is my third most favorite movie of the year and I am very pleased with its mark it has made at the Golden Globes. Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley cooper, and even Deniro makes an appearance if the wolf of wall street didn't come out this year I would say this was the best ensemble of the year but not quite.This film is for sure going to be a front runner for best picture at the Oscars and if it were to win I wouldn't object. However the film is sometimes slow and is definitely a thinking movie. It isn't exactly complicated but it is elaborate and if you don't pay close enough attention you could lose your spot and you can end up confused. The only complaint I have ever heard of for this movie is that it was really boring, I found it very clever and entertaining and as I stated before this has the best story of the year.

Unfortunately another Hollywood product as well as a further failure. They realized an excellent story full of good ideas but time-line doesn't let to develop them. So a story of 4 hours is cut to reach the usual standard time. Storyline defects: 1) events happen too fast, it's not natural; 2) events happen but they are not contextualized compared to the plot (example: 2 humans are in a military repository to test arms forwarded by human chief they are killed by an ape there is no consequence... these 2 men disappear from the story; another example: main human characters escape from apes citadel in the night leaded by some apes after Caesar fall, they are searching for Caesar in the morning (what happened between these 2 facts?). Another question concerns with logic: apes can infiltrate easily into human fortress as dark knight, but then they attack human enemies in front of from the ground(illogical: apes can infiltrate and attack on trees or palaces directly as shown). Movie lacks also of explanation about human fortress and apes citadel origin and description of them. Some scenes are ridiculous as human assemblage to celebrate energy since afternoon to night (the same scene in the same place all the time) till apes arrival. The movie appears to be fragmented and or cut from an event to another event sometime very dumb as if it has been made by a child. director inability? Hollywood poor standards!? Or both. I don't know exactly... what I know is that potentiality has been completely ruined. Man of steel falls almost in the same defect: too many events summarized in 2 hours. This problem begins to happen too often lately.

Once Chris Tucker enters the picture the movie takes off. His humor keeps the movie going. There is a lot of good kick boxing and action of that nature, but the humor keeps the movie fun to watch. It is a movie that will make good at the box office. It's one that you can watch more than once.

I have zero expectation for this film as the review is soooo bad as well as what i have heard from my friends. But I just want to see how bad is this film. To my surprise I actually like it, and I thought the leads have good chemistry (while most reviews say they have zero chemistry.) To be fair after reading some of the reviews in IMDb which gave only 1 star, I realized all of them are guys and a lot of them keep using words to insult those women who likes it. I feel, they don't like it because it's not erotic enough for them. (Which in a matter of fact, I don't find the sex scene erotic at all and I was expecting something more intense.) But from the romance point of view, I think it's sweet and I love to see how much Christian actually love Ana yet he didn't realize. (I guess it is a girl thing, we like this kind of feeling.) So I feel the reviews are very personal and a very bias one.

This movie ROCKED. I loved it, it was better than Cats, I want to see it again and again and again...Seriously though, Tobey McGuire is Peter Parker/Spider-man. His performance was fantastic. And Willem Dafoe, rocked as the Green Goblin. The story was excellent. Sam Raimi was the perfect director for this film. Can't wait to see what happens in the sequel. Some of the effects were a little cheesy (CGI-looking), but that doesn't hamper the story. I give this flick a 10 all the way. This sets the bar for all movies to come based on comics; this is the way it should be done.

I endured the film as the time passing activity it was meant to be, but at the end when the reconnect the entire city to the internet............WITH A DIAL-UP MODEM, I mean wtf? ignoring the whole getting WiFi from a light bulb thing the dial-up modem really bugged me

Well, I saw this movie when it first came out with my current partner, near the beginning of our relationship. So, I'm biased.Yes, I love this movie.It's like a more grown-up version of Spirited Away. The characters are rounder and warmer and, if anything, more magical. The magic is richer and cleverer and darker and more compelling. The dream has burst into reality, the magic is not dreamy, but *awake*, wide awake and sizzling with wild delights, in the form of a castle that walks around on chicken legs with a fire-demon at its heart. It's every bit as good, the emotional tones are even more beautiful than in that other masterpiece of the unbridled childish imagination.My favourite scene is the flashback when Howl watches the falling star people fizzing across the sky to the high, clear, pale blue lake near his little house in the mountains, and catches one and starts talking to it. It lights up his face in the dark...You either love this sort of thing or you don't.And, better still, it has a *grown-up* fairy story, the story of a girl who must cast away her self-imposed prison of excessive common sense and dare to dream.Again the plot is meandering, but it's even less important in this than in Miyazaki's other movies. The last scene is a breath-taking and unashamedly primitive romantic confection. Just like Disney used to be...10 stars. 100 stars... 1,000 stars...

Zootopia is a great example of an animated movie that has something to offer for all ages. The crisp animation combined with witty social commentary makes it an enjoyable watch. The plot is simple; a rabbit named Judy Hopps is the first of her kind to become a police officer and faces many social challenges on her path to success. I will spare the details, but her journey involves a detailed crime investigation in tandem with a sly fox. The story is not entirely predictable and moves at a decent pace to keep the viewer engaged. I like that the movie encompasses various movie genres, which is characteristic of an excellent animated movie. Music is average, but can safely be overlooked.The most impressive parts are the commentary on various social issues as well as the small details that are paid close attention to. The characteristics of each animal was clearly studied well, and there were no logical discontinuities with the facts. It makes the viewer think a little and confirm that each animal's features are indeed sensible. The film stays grounded in realism and this sets the perfect tone for delivering social messages pertaining to classism. This could have easily been cliché if the movie deviated from logic too much, but the right balance was achieved by Zootopia.

"The Chronicles of Narnia" has gorgeous looking set-design and visuals, a really good cast, and stories that teach a good moral lesson. But one thing keeps me from really raving about the series so far, which is it is not "Harry Potter." When I watched the first one something just seemed missing. Maybe it was originality, maybe the kid actors just didn't charm me in the same way and maybe it was the promise of dealing with weightier subjects still to come, but my inner jury is still out on whether this series has a chance to touch epic greatness or not. I went into "Prince Caspian" hoping for a clearer picture and what I got was something far less than "Potter" and "Rings", and yet still something entertaining and fun. As I remember it, the Pevensie children, Lucy (Georgia Henley), Edmund (Skander Keynes), Peter (William Moseley), and Susan (Anna Popplewell) were crowned Kings and Queens of Narnia after helping Jesus (actually Aslan) the Lion defeat the white witch. It is now one year later and the kids find themselves back in Narnia, where they are surprised to discover that Narnia is now 1300 years older and the years have not helped it age well. Narnia has been conquered by the Telmarines and is now under the control of the evil King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). The King's nephew, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), has called the children back to Narnia to help him take back the throne and establish himself as its rightful heir. Miraz has forced Caspian into hiding and vowed to kill him so that he can put his son on the throne next. With the help of a kindly dwarf, Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage), and many other Narnian creatures, the kids and Caspian set out to find Aslan (Liam Neeson) and put an end to Miraz's reign on Narnia. The screenplay, by Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely begins slowly with its plot setup but it doesn't take long before "Narnia" turns into Lord of the Rings-lite. This is a much more brutal "Narnia" movie, staging two absolutely epic and rousing battles (one an invasion on Miraz castle and the other being Narnia's final stand against Miraz) that will thrill both young and old. I love an excellently choreographed sword-fight and this movie doesn't disappoint in that category either. There's no blood but for a children's film, the action is first-rate and non-stop excitement. The visual effects and make-up design on the Narnian creatures are a marvel to behold and the music by Harry Gregson-Williams adds to the movies epic feel. "Narnia" also offers a bit of compelling religious symbolism, specifically referring to such topics as believing in a higher power and temptation. "Prince Caspian" does have its problems, primarily coming from the four leads. While these kids are likable in and of themselves, you never really see them as having individual personalities. They're noble and brave and the actors play the roles well but they're also pretty bland and the movie is at its weakest when they're talking to one another. Peter Dinklage, on the other hand, is a nice addition to the cast and adds some comic relief, and the ladies are going to love the charming Ben Barnes. Castellitto's glowering Miraz makes for a decent villain and if you were going to give a voice to Jesus, who's better to do it than the hearty and authoritative Liam Neeson. One other problem was "Caspian" seems to steal several ideas from "Lord of the Rings" (Walking trees anyone) and at times that can be distracting but overall this is a kids movie that will excite adults as well. The battles, the effects, and almost all of it makes for good family entertainment and after last week's terrible "Speed Racer", they could use some. Enjoy!

Historically, there are myriad inaccuracies, but who cares? Apocalypto is a "guy" movie, with savagery from start to finish. Found therein are a plethora of chases, escapes, challenges, crude humor, the arts of manhood and war, intrigues, sacrifices, natives, epic deaths, near naked women, honor, principles, valor, true love, and, severed-head bowling.Gibson may be one confused, lost, little man, but Apocalypto never fails to entertain. There are few slow moments, with action or distraction with every step. The film is shot closely, saving the epic style for the last 1/3 of the work, which made it all the more enjoyable, to me. It does not take itself too seriously, yet doesn't go so far as to wink at us, either. The subject matter is VERY serious, while the film itself somehow manages to impart some level of entertainment even while it shocks us by giving us what we expect from this particular civilization.All in all? It's a good Friday/Saturday night movie, but the gals may not like it. It is very bloody, though not nearly as bloody as Sweeny Todd.It rates an 8.4/10 from...the Fiend :.

Wow! Finally another movie that makes you think about what you're seeing as opposed to presenting you with endless special effects. Not, perhaps, as thought-provoking as Memento, but enjoyably brain exercising nonetheless.Having gone into this movie, as I prefer to, with no preconceptions, I assumed it was a simple whodunnit. I was pleasantly surprised to find the greater depth and plot twists involved. Actually, even as a whodunnit, forgetting the real plot for a moment, it works pretty well.There are more red-herrings in this movie than the North Sea fishing fleet has, so be warned that whatever you think is going on, probably isn't.All of the characters have decent roles. There are no Star Trek "red shirt" security men here, waiting to be killed off. No one whom you think from the start "he's dead". The killer could be anyone, no one person stands out head and shoulders above the rest.Every time you think you know what's going on, the rug is pulled out from under you and you have to start over again. The final revelation is elegant and thoughtful and, whilst it trivialises much of what you've just watched a bit, it is nevertheless an original idea and made me glad I went to see this film.Sadly, because of it's nature, this is a one-view film. Although it may be worth watching again to see if you can spot the clues to the truth of the situation. And it's certainly a good film to watch with someone who hasn't seen it, just to watch their reactions.Well worth a watch.

This film is unique and very creative since it did not follow the traditional and typical Alien-Vs-Humanity movies out there. In all the movies that fall with this same genre, this movie is very different from the others.To be honest, "War of the Worlds" and "The Day The Earth Stood Still" suck much than this movie since they're very predictable and the way how Humanity fights with the Aliens is very non-realistic, it cannot convince a hysterical mind.Aliens maybe strong physically but they need a human brain - an intelligence to function. And if Aliens are true, then of course there is no way to beat them, only something from their kind can. And so one heroic and rebelling human mind does it. A human body maybe soft, but with a strong "will" to pursue. That what Skyline is all about.We demand part II ...

I recently went to see this in 3D with a few friends. After seeing it, we came out laughing.The story is same old same old and very predictable.The characters were good enough for the film but it would be good to know more about them. I cant believe Richard Dreyfuss was the first to go. The acting, well let me say Iv seen better actors. It was all about Ving Rhames for me, with his awesome but cheesy quote The editing started off pore but then it got better through out the movie.The special effects again were good enough for the film. But my i ask, what was the point in the scene where two of the girls make out under water with operatic music in the background? Also there happened to be the scientist who knew exactly what the fish was and its prehistoric history.Overall, this movie is pretty bad but again its grate for a giggle with your friends. I wouldn't take your girlfriend to see it because there is a lot and I mean a lot of soft porn references, for example a lot of boobs.So don't expect anything fantastic. Just take it in as tongue and cheek like i did.

Rented this movie back in 1992 for my son, who was then just 6 years old. I was 26. I fell in love with it, and so did he. I bought it on video as soon as I could, and soon, he and I both were quoting lines from it all the time. There was as much "grown-up" jokes and fun as there was stuff for the kids. How could *anyone* that's ever had to grow up (and we all have) not absolutely LOVE this movie?? It's funny, sad, and all about having to say goodbye to something precious.....your childhood. My daughter began watching it when she was about 5. She's 13 now, and still cries with me at the end....every time. My son is now 17, and swears if he has them, his kids will get to see it too. So what if it's not "Gone With the Wind?" It's a great film in it's own right and genre.

This was the movie that everyone has been waiting for. So it's completely natural to have extremely high expectations for this movie. Given that it's the 2 most iconic superheroes colliding in one huge blockbuster movie. Especially after "The Dark Knight Trilogy" , people were very anxious to see Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman. Unfortunately, this movie certainly does not deliver. It had all the elements of becoming such a great movie, but ended up being extremely sloppy and poorly edited. Of course, there are some positive about the movie, but they do not outweigh the negatives. Here are the DetailsLet's begin with what's good about this movie. Ben Afflecks portrayal as Batman was incredible. This version of batman is a much more dark, menacing, and merciless Batman than that of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. He absolutely proved doubters wrong (myself included). Definitely looking forward to the upcoming movie "The Batman", which will be directed by Ben Affleck as well. The action sequences in the movie were really well choreographed, with stunning CGI. Will keep you on the edge of your seat and remind you a lot of the action sequences in 300 and Watchmen. The BAD... Let me start of by saying that the 3 trailers for this movie are too revealing, taking away some of the element of surprise and some key moments in the movie. So if you haven't watched any of them, then you just might like the movie a lot more. The way the story jumps from one scene to the next is unbelievably sloppy. A moment keeps building up and just when you think that a climatic moment is about to occur, it doesn't. Instead, it takes you to a completely unrelated and slow scene which kills the momentum. You almost feel like it's a mash-up of 2 different directors in 1 movie. One of the most disappointing things about this movie is that it doesn't focus on the main plot of the story, which is why Batman and Superman are fighting. Instead, they keep focusing on characters which really do not have any real impact on the audience. The audience wants the main focus to be on JUST these 2 iconic characters, but they fail to do so, leaving the audience with a very poor story. The audience is supposed to have a hard time deciding which superhero is right and wrong. Instead, you actually reach a point where you don't even care which superhero wins the conflict due to the very poor buildup. Another disappointing point is that this movie is DEFINITELY not for everyone (especially children), unlike "Captain America: Winter Soldier", which is definitely a movie that both comic fans and non- coming fans (and children). I would say that the only people who would love this movie are the hardcore comic fans.Overall, I definitely feel like this movie has NOT lived up to its hype and expectation. The movie has its good moments, but mostly bad. I definitely feel like Zack Snyder will not be too happy about the way he made this movie. It's a shame, because this should have been a 9/10, but to me it barely qualifies as a 7/10.

SPOILERS!!! BEWARE!!!I've seen this movie once and it ranks up with my absolute favorites. I saw it in the theatre a while ago and couldn't take my eyes off the screen, although i could hear the complaints of other people in the seats behind me. Up front, you should know that this movie is damn long, and that it's not for everyone (not that any movie really is, I suppose). Afterwards, in talking with friends about this movie, I heard comments as varying as the comments I've read on here. One friend mentioned "What was the point of that movie? Everything's interconnected? So what?" Another friend thought it was amatuerish and far too long. Another was excitedly talking about it for weeks after having seen it, still trying to unearth things she didn't notice initially. Regardless of what the reaction was, it definitely succeeded in eliciting just that, an emphatic reaction, from everyone I spoke with. Which, in a time where some may think we've "seen it all," is something worth noting. It deals with many extremely unhappy people in extremely depressing situations, but it is no way a depressing movie. It's ultimately a movie of hope. And while it's obvious that it's overall message is that of redemption and forgiveness and acceptance of our individual lives and everything that's previously bothered us, as well as the importance of owning up to the lives we've led before we can wholly move on to better things, it's told in such an unconventional way by today's standards that it gets lost for some.As far as the length, I figure there are plenty of movies out there that DID get edited down to a more readily acceptable length. Hell, somebody had to leave everything in to see what would happen. And while there, why not just go all out? I completely respect and enjoyed everything about this movie for not in any way (that I can see) giving in to the idea of what "should be done." Instead it seemed a work of passion. In regards to people I've talked with who couldn't make any sense out of the frog storm, I've said a few things from what I could figure out: Firstly, it's in the bible, which is made obvious throughout the movie by conveying the exact passage countless times to the viewers. If you have a problem simply with the frog storm, it's not with the movie, it's with the preivous book. Secondly, some people I talked to asked why the hell it had to be "frogs"......why not just a gigantic thunderstorm? To that I answer "I don't know." And I don't think anybody should know. If anybody did, it would ruin the effect of the event itself, because it's origins could be traced back to something human and/or earthly and 100% explainable without the existence of another higher power, so to speak. I saw the storm as a big reminder to all the characters in the movie who thought their problems were more overwhelming than any other problems imaginable (which would be pretty much every character). A reminder that, regardless of how bad it might seem to be, there's still something out there beyond our comprehension that/who is watching us and basically letting us know it's okay.......we're not that badly off. Frogs make no sense in the realm of logic, but logic has little to do with faith. All this said, I'm not really extremely pretentious or "arty" or any of that crap. After all, I loved "Happy Gilmore," too. And I guess in the big picture, I usually like a lot of stuff that does what it does wholeheartedly, without pandering or second-guessing what others might like, and stays true to it's focus, whether it's making the longest most message-filled darkly funny movie you can, or the cheesiest dumbest movie you can. Or, in other words, yeah, I liked Magnolia lots and lots.

Yes, it's true. He's done it. After reviving the 'Batman' brand three years ago, Christopher Nolan has done the unthinkable. The impossible. Not only has he outdone himself and the wildest of expectations, but Nolan has created a comic book movie that transcends the limits of its genre to become something so much more. So dark, so sinister. 'The Dark Knight' is a masterpiece, and it has all the makings of a timeless classic. Not merely a movie about good versus evil, but about the evil born out of good. And the toll it takes on those who fight it.There's no doubt that the mind of Christopher Nolan is a dark place. We've seen it before, which made Nolan an interesting choice to pick up the broken franchise. Did they comprehend exactly what they were getting themselves into? Probably not. Needless to say, one studio's gamble has been our tremendous gain. 'Batman Begins' was a remarkable re-visioning of the Caped Crusader's roots, but it is with 'The Dark Knight' that Nolan unleashes his twisted fury with impeccable precision and horrific brilliance. He aims high, far and above what any other superhero has ever tackled before. The results are startling.Saving a city, protecting innocent people, questioning your habits. This is not foreign territory that 'The Dark Knight' is invading, but it doesn't seek out the easy answers. Christian Bale once again inhabits the bat costume, and he delivers an exquisite performance of a sincere man, but a tortured soul. The moral dilemmas presented to us run deep, as Bruce Wayne doesn't simply battle his inner demons, but a worldview that breeds chaos and thrives on anarchy. Where good men trying to do the right thing can be brought down to the depths of hell, that within us all lies a savage and barbaric beast. Dog eat dog.Yes, that's the Joker. A nihilistic psychopath, you're not sure whether you should chuckle at his clever gestures or shudder in eerie fear. It was a role that would have made him the superstar he deserved to be, a role that would forever carry his name. Heath Ledger did not live to see his brilliant work on the big screen, but he would be proud. He really is that good. It's evident he went to a very dark place to construct this malicious Joker, and he will always be remembered for delivering one of the most haunting, disturbing performances ever put to screen. Chaos for the sake of chaos, mass destruction for a little bit of fun and disorder.'The Dark Knight' soars among some of the best crime dramas ever told. A skillfully complex story that serves not only as an adrenaline rush of pure entertainment, but home to many profound ideas of power, politics, corruption, and the simple decency of mankind. Nolan uses Gotham City as a universal concept, not a crime-ridden city patrolled by a man in a bat costume that exists purely in the mind of its creator. It reaches across into our world, and effectively says something very powerful and unsettling about our morality. Harvey Dent sadly represents all of these things, and through the help of the very talented Aaron Eckhart, gives a face to these troubling but necessary ideas.'The Dark Knight' will get under your skin, and it should. It isn't satisfied with simply being one of the greatest, if not the greatest, comic book movie ever made, it goes even further into a land rarely occupied by cinema but reserved only for the best. On the outside, 'The Dark Knight' is everything a summer blockbuster should be. The action is thrilling, the air of suspense is thick, the production values are top-notch and gorgeous to watch and look at. But underneath lays a core with many complicated layers, and Nolan is just getting started. 'The Dark Knight' will haunt you, it will linger in your memory. The freakishly twisted villains, a hero nobody wants. This is an unforgettable film, a masterful accomplishment whose own ambition is stunning and timely. Christopher Nolan is trying to tell us something, and he's using Batman to tell that story. Do yourself a favor and listen.More reviews at rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=219276&view=public

Another reviewer on IMDb gave this a 10/10 and they said that this was all the best parts of every disaster movie you've ever seen. That's not too far from the truth. It has been a long, long, LONG time since we have had a terrific disaster flick. Nowadays its all about the special effects and it becomes so ridiculous that you lose sight of what made disaster movies so great. San Andreas still goes for the jugular of modern day special effects but it also goes back to the disaster roots and uses all the familiar recipe ingredients to ensure this is ferociously enjoyable and it is!! It will never win Oscars (not including special effects) and its not some critical masterpiece but it is purely entertainment. It is the sort of popcorn, theatre flick that we rarely see anymore. Its the type of movie that reminds you why we all fell in love with movies. I smiled, I cringed, I cried out loud, I teared up...it was remarkable. I could watch this again and again without hesitation. The characters might be typical and some of the scenes predictable but it has been so long since someone got the disaster movie recipe right that I loved every minute of it. This is as much of an homage to the 70's Disaster era as it is a modern day spectacle of effects.Dwayne Johnson (in my books) went from ridiculous WWE wrestling that I haven't watched since I was 12 to trying his hand at acting and becoming the next big Hollywood star. In fact, he might be one of the only young Hollywood stars in recent years that I really enjoy watching him kick some serious butt. He has an incredible charisma on screen and he's just very likable and a great "every-man's" hero. He is perfect in this part and defines hero. Carla Gugino plays Johnson's estranged soon-to-be ex-wife. She plays a great part and her and Johnson seem like an odd couple and yet as their characters develop they are believable together and terrific. Alexandra Daddario is terrific as Johnson's daughter. First of all, she is gorgeous but she is also very down to earth, a great heroine, and very believable. She stands right up there with Johnson and gets noticed. Hugo Johnstone-Burt, Art Parkinson, Ioan Gruffudd and Paul Giamatti round out the supporting cast and literally all of them are terrific in their own way. They all have at least one or two scenes that are really great and the movie wouldn't be the same without them.Director Brad Peyton has done everything right with this film. He goes for the emotions, the intensity, the realism and for all the previous Earthquake films this one takes the cake. Remember the classic Disaster film "Earthquake"? That was scary. San Andreas obliterates modern society and you believe it. You can't help but imagine what this would be like. It is one nail-biting, insane moment after another. The CGI is spot on (and I HATE CGI) but this was nearly perfect. Ironically, the only time the CGI was bad (really bad) was in a scene near the end with them in a boat. The Quake, the disaster itself, the Tsunami and the Hoover Dam scenes were amazing. If you're going into this looking for all the reasons why it isn't perfect then you'll find some. I went in looking for a good time and man did I find that in spades!! Incredibly entertaining, a terrific time at the movies and another huge 2015 blockbuster!!! 10/10

When I first heard of this new adaptation, there were two things that came up to me: why do we need an another take on the world's most famous murder case after two successful adaptations, and why in god's name Branagh wants to put himself in the shoes of David Suchet, THE Poirot incarnation in most people's minds. It's a losing battle almost by default, like comparing the bland Kate Middleton to the glamorous superstar that was Lady Diana. But anyway, I decided to give the poor guy a chance to impress me and maybe,do a decent job. This proved to be a false hope from the moment I was confronted with that monstrosity right in the middle of his face, which was so distracting that you couldn't concentrate on the talking whenever his face was in focus, which is quite often. Here, he's trying to solve a murder case in a compartment of the luxurious transcontinental train Orient Express, and each and every one of the title characters seem to have a motif for murder.There are-to be fair-a couple of novelties Branagh brought to the character and the film itself- his version of Poirot (while equally impeccably dressed), has a sense of humour that Suchet was lacking, which occasionally borders on slapstick. The opening plot is completely irrelevant for the main story save for the fact that it was obviously used merely as an excuse to enchant us with Poirot's little petty obsessions and his little gray zellz. Also, in the breakfast scenes we can see Branagh visibly enjoying the role which reassures the viewer that this movie just might be worth the while. The new Poirot is also much more romantic than his predecessor and not afraid to show it (if talking to a photo qualifies as affection). Ultimately, the new sleuth is in a much better shape and doesn't need Hastings to chase a suspect down a dangerously fragile railway bridge. But. Branagh (doing double-duty both as the main character and director) assembled a whole galaxy of superstars to embody the suspects (in the former version, only Jessica Chastain was a known name). What works great on paper proved tricky on film, since there are too many suspects for the director to give each one enough screen time to seduce us with their personalities. Instead, we get just a taste of the immense talent with which the famous train is loaded, and many act merely as prototypes instead as full-fledged characters. While Michelle Pfeiffer uses every opportunity to shine as the flirtatious Mrs Hubbard, someone as charismatic as Judi Dench is reduced to a grumpy princess Dragomiroff who isn't doing a lot of talking but alas, a lot of dog-fondling. This might just be the single biggest issue of this reiteration of Agatha Christie's novel: all those A-list actors are underemployed in the whole scheme of the script. Johnny Depp, of course, plays the shady victim, and Penelope Cruz doesn't really impress as Pilar Estravados, a character borrowed from "Hercule Poirot's Christmas". There are some factual misinterpretations: Vinkovci, in Yugoslavia, where the murder takes place, is in the continental part of the country which happens to be as flat as a chess board, and the scenery in the movie rather resembles the Alps. Other than that, the redeeming qualities of the whole undertaking are the gloriously executed production design: the glamorous Art Deco interiors, the stylish costumes and the breathtaking panoramic vistas of the surrounding scenery. Details from the train are the icing on this semi-successful cake: the table settings, the white tablecloths and decorative lights, the lavish armchairs and the delicious desserts delivered by waiters in white suits. If there's one thing you'll take away from all this, no matter if you liked the film or not, it will be the urge to take a train ride to anywhere at the earliest opportunity. And that might be a success in itself.

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a great and successful sequel to it's 2011 predecessor and reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and it is one of the best movies of the 2014 summer season! The film is just phenomenal. There is more to this movie than just a summer movie that was critically acclaimed by critics and audiences.This is the eighth theatrical film in the franchise, overall. The critics and audiences praised this film for it's visual effects, story, direction, music, acting and it's focus on emotional depth. I will get into the story of the film first before I get into the other stuff that I like about this movie.The film is set ten years after "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", this film establishes that a virus called the "Simian Flu" that increased the intelligence of the apes has killed most of the human race. Our main protagonist, Caesar struggles to maintain peace as his ape community is drawn into an all-out war with nearby human survivors. The plot is easy to follow, it may take a couple of re-watches to know what is going on, but to me, the plot was simply well-written and I give credit to Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver, who wrote a very great script and story that is just one of the greatest film stories ever created.Now, I get to the other stuff. The first thing I start off with is the concept of the film. A lot of people has said that this film is like The Empire Strikes Back of the Planet of the Apes films and that is exactly what it feels like. A lot critics have liked the combination of an engaging script with impressive special effects and this movie does not fail at all. Story: 8.9 / 10.I move on to the special effects. I love the CGI and motion-capture for the apes in this film as much as I thought I would like and from my point of view, the visual effects company who did this film's work also did the effects for the Lord of the Rings, as well as Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of the 1933 film, King Kong. The visual effects are just impressive.The music by Michael Giacchino, is very amazing and with the choir and orchestra, it feels like an actual Planet of the Apes musical score. A lot of critics really liked the musical score. Me, I definitely like it when I hear a choir in a film's musical score, such as The Polar Express, the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars prequel trilogies as well as The Dark Knight Trilogy. The music is just amazing. The direction by Matt Reeves is just amazing. I have seen his other movie, Cloverfield, which is produced by J.J. Abrams and it is simply amazing, but this film, he really had a lot to prove and it shows because it does not feel like it's a very long movie. The film is as long as it needs to be -- 2 hours and 10 minutes -- is just all I need for this kind of movie. His way of directing the action scenes are great and when stuff goes down in this movie, stuff is going down. I'm talking a big battle with the humans going against the apes and everything, but the best fight scene was at the end when Caesar and the main antagonist, Koba has this one heck of a fight, in which Koba begs for his life, saying "Apes does not kill apes" and Caesar tells him, "You are not ape" and lets him fall to his death. That part was disturbing for me, but it was also action-packed. The emotional scenes are what really got me to like this movie, along with the action, but the emotional depth that this movie focuses on is really amazing to see. Now, I move on to the final thing that I will mention and that is the acting. Caesar is played once again by Andy Serkis and his performance was so great that I was actually happy to see him in this part again. He blew me away as Gollum and he blew me away even more as the title character, King Kong. I felt that he should have won an Academy Award for his performance capture acting.Toby Kebbell plays the villainous Koba and he is just great, there are moments where he scares you but he works nicely. Judy Greer plays Cornelia and she is great. Nick Thurston plays Blue Eyes and he is great also and Karin Konoval plays Maurice and he is good as well.Now, I move on to the human characters: Jason Clarke, plays Malcolm and he does a really great job in his performance. Gary Oldman plays the role of Dreyfus and he makes a good character work, especially when Oldman played Jim Gordon and Sirius Black, those performances were great. Keri Russell plays Ellie, Malcolm's wife and she does a really amazing job and Kodi-Smit McPhee plays their son, which I am surprised to see him in this film. Overall, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is just a well-made that I think needs to be seen by everyone, not just kids, but family members and film students as well. Also, for kids, who would like to make movies one day, like I do, this is a movie that you should see. If you have a boyfriend or girlfriend, let them watch it and see what effect it has on them. This is movie worth buying on DVD and also watching on TV, because this movie is spectacular, remarkable, majestic, amazing, emotional and breathtaking. My rating is a 10 out of 10.

This film was pretty good. I enjoyed watching it, of course Dangerous Liaisons is better, but this movie was enjoyable also. Nice performances by the cast, and an enjoyable movie to watch. If you liked Dangerous Liaisons, you would probably like this, it's actually pretty good. If you don't like Witherspoon or Gellar, I think you would still like this film.

The movie can be classified under the "comedy/romance" genre where it features 4 characters and their adventures as they fall in love with each other. I wanted to see the movie as I was curious to see how Jack Nicholson & Keanu Reeves will feature in such a romantic comedy movie. However, It didn't meet my expectation as it showed how weak is Jack Nicholson in portraying comic characters. His cheesy smile throughout the movie just turned me off. As for Keanu Reeves, I was surprised by the small role that such a "box office" star have. Fans Of "Sweet November" movie would be extremely disappointed by his rigid performance. As for Amanda Peet (whole nine yards) and Diane Keaton, their performance is extraordinarily portrayed as it shows womens' feelings and their expectations. This is one of the positive things that Nancy Meyers get right in the movie.Other than that, the movie suffers from few other mishaps such as the scenes of over-excessive sobbing that were annoying as well as its lack of what I call "romantic moments".The movie is aimed for a different audience. It may appeal for "sex and the city" fans as it inherits many of its elements. Moreover, I would recommend this movie for an Old generation of people who discover romance at a late stage in their life (I would've recommended this movie to my grandfather or grandmother if they were divorced ;)) My Rating: 5/10

Once you get over how crusty Harrison Ford looks these days, and how Cate Blanchett is the hands-down winner of the Worst Russian Accent category at the Oscars (narrowly beating Sean "Hunt For Red October" Connery), this is a top film that ticks all the action boxes.I think its only real minus is the script is not as snappy as its predecessors - Ford reads off his lines in the same eye-rolling weary fashion that Alec Guinness did in his Jedi robes. So for most of the film, he mumbles his lines and hopes no-one hears them.If you put it against the previous three Indy films, I admit it suffers. But then there was no real way it could live up to the hype after such a long hiatus (See also: Star Wars) but then, who cares? A few familiar faces are there, it's got John Williams tunes, it's got a bonkers plot, it's got highly improbable action sequences, a good few laughs along the way, and an ending that will (probably) draw a close on the old Indy saga.So shut your face, watch the film and shovel popcorn down your gullet.

WWII American Army Medic Desmond T. Doss, who served during the Battle of Okinawa, refuses to kill people and becomes the first Conscientious Objector in American history to be awarded the Medal of Honor. Hacksaw Ridge is a character driven masterpiece that takes it time to get into things and action and when war hits it's ruthless and very well shot with a lot of violence i mean this film scared the hell out of me at times and that has never happen to me before in a war film ever and as much as i love Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers this is the much better it takes it's time to unfold it's characters and to basically make them more likable. Andrew Garfield in this film is amazing and he even communicates with some certain characters with just facial expressions this man is not Spider-Man anymore he is Desmond Doss the bravest man i have ever seen the things that this guy does in this film are beyond my mind, Sam Worthington another underrated actor gives a very good performance and the men who really surprised me were Vince Vaughn as Sgt Howell and Luke Bracey as Smitty Ryker 2 really good actors that spend most of their career starring in garbage movies especially Vaughn who basically played himself in each movie he basically played the David Schwimmer from Band of Brothers his career basically got resurrected and it's in his hands to rebuild what this movie gave him another great performance came from Hugo Weaving Mr. Smith himself played Desmond's alcoholic father and damn even tho he was a monster to his family the man portrayed the character with passion and dedication and that scene where he wore his uniform again to save his son was really good. I've seen many great war movies but this one is easily the most inspiring one and you don't have to be a believer to appreciate it my only complain for the film is really small i would like to see more of Desmond and his brother but also more of his relationship with Dorothy Schutte played by the beautiful and talented Teresa Palmer. What i'm trying to say guys is that this film left me speechless it was heroic, dramatic, action packed, hardcore and even funny at times and it even brought me the feels it's good that we finally got a story that we didn't know anything about and now we can learn a powerful message to always stand by for what we believe in and please Hollywood give Mel Gibson a 2nd chance the man is talented and this film should definitely be nominated for an Oscar for best actor and even soundtrack. Hacksaw Ridge gets an A+ and it's easily the best movie of Gibson next to Braveheart!!