Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 1

Words are far too poor to embrace the magic of this film. This movie along with the brilliance of Morgan Freeman, Tim Robbins and the plot twists and spirit created by the master Stephen King is a masterpiece. I have never felt such a mixture of emotions from one film. And this film certainly delivers the kind of electricity that touches one's soul.

I love all three of Sam Raimi's Dead films, recently I purchased the first of the three on Blu ray, and was very pleased. Shockingly enough, it was only today I finally watched Army of Darkness in its entirety; years ago, before I'd really gotten into watching a lot of horror, I'd seen a part of it and not been too enthused. So I was glad to put it on today and find out I really enjoyed it- not only was it satisfying on a make-up effects level, as it knew it would be, the story was great, and the comedy, courtesy of the man Bruce Campbell himself, had me laughing a lot.Army of Darkness is definitely different from Evil Dead and Evil Dead II- we're back in time, of course it's different! I don't know if that turned some people off or not, but I loved it. I thought that it was smart. Instead of going for another version of Evil Dead or Evil Dead II (let's face it- even though they're both great, the second is mostly a rehash, though I stress I do love all three of these films nearly equally), Raimi takes things to an exciting new level by going back in time with Ash and the Deadites. Such a great way to take the franchise, in my opinion.As I said before, the make-up effects were great. I think a lot of what they did really elevated what was going on. I particularly love when Ash is thrown into the pit; great scene! Then the chainsaw is dropped in, Ash slips it on in mid-air, and we're off! Army of Darkness proves that you don't have to go with some sort of twisting-turning plot to be successful with a horror movie- at times when Campbell is hamming it up, and hamming well I might add, it's almost like a cross between Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and a horror film.I give this film a 10 out of 10. Amazed, considering all the horror movies I've seen over the years, it took me so long to finally watch this front to back. Very pleased with it, and I'm definitely going to pop this on again in the near future because I had a blast watching it the first time! Highly recommend it for horror fans and especially those who were fans of Evil Dead and Evil Dead II.

I just came back from seeing the movie at the theater. Just two word, "total disaster!". Firstly, I have high expectation toward this movie after watching the heartbreaking trailer, however, I was really disappointed. The plot, the storyline, and the scratching voice of Hades really messed it up. I still wondering, the reason the main character, Perseus has to make those scratching, annoying voice just like Cristian Bale in Batman Begins for which there are no reason at all. It doesn't make the audiences to realize that he is so manly, as we can see just by looking at his six-packs body. Despite of great CGI effects, it still couldn't help the movie to reach the level of thrilling and exciting that every viewers want.Overall, i will give the movie 4 out of 10.

I love to read books about climbing high mountains, particularly in the Himalayas. I expected this stupid movie to add something to my fascination with the subject. I wanted to feel the suffering of the climbers and the complexity of high mountain climbing. But this movie has nothing at all. It is just a comedy, not even funny I must say. Did you see the climbers running at an altitude of 28.000 feet?. Nobody can run at such an altitude. Did you see the clothes they were wearing?. These guys looked as it they were climbing the highest mountain in Holland. Very disappointing!! SORRY

"Cry-Baby" has most of the subversive charm of Waters's early movies with very few of the gag-worthy scenes (like, for example, drag queen Divine eating dogpoo, and that's only the tip of the iceberg). Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching his early movies, largely because of the audacity with which he tried to gross you out. But since he joined the studio system I do think his movies got better, as they should have because he could afford a much larger budget and better actors. Johnny Depp, of course, didn't become a marquee name until some time after this came out -- he was previously best known for his role on the TV show "21 Jump Street" and had also played Nancy's boyfriend in "A Nightmare on Elm Street" -- but afterwards he exploded, and I wonder if it's partly because of his role in this movie. On the other hand, John Waters is so far from mainstream, that's hard to imagine, but you have to give Depp credit for his performance in this; he's always taken quirky, far-from-mainstream parts, and this is where it all began. He's so successful here I wish he'd do a reunion movie with Waters as the two go together so well."Cry-Baby" takes place in Baltimore during the 50s and concerns itself with two opposing segments of society: the squares, who are the clean-cut types, and the drapes, who are juvenile delinquent types. Wade "Cry-Baby" Walker (Depp) is the latter, and Allison, played by Amy Locane is a square, but she's kind of a square peg in her community; she's smitten on sight with Cry-Baby, and is tired of being good (she's a "scrape", as a character later says). And so we have the set-up for the story -- Allison runs off from the squares to join Cry-Baby at a music show he's putting on, which ignites a war between the squares and the drapes. One of the clever things about this set-up is that we rarely see Cry-Baby and his gang doing anything illegal -- at one point, he bumps into Mrs. Vernon-Williams' car (she's Allison's grandmother and a leader of the square community, played by Polly Bergen), and there's a definite air of obnoxiousness about them, but that's really about it. The squares, by contrast, seem like the bad kids; Allison's boyfriend punches Cry-Baby unprovoked when he goes to pick her up, they destroy property when they get to Cry-Baby's show to teach him a lesson, etc. It's one of those "Who's really the bad guy?" situations. All of this leads to a great courtroom scene that helps set up the central conflict of the third act, with Allison not sure which path she wants to go down, and Cry-Baby locked up in reform school.The cast is hilarious. You have Johnny Depp and Amy Locane in the lead roles, and they're both great. And you also have Ricki Lake who is very entertaining as Pepper, Cry-Baby's pregnant sister; she has one of the funniest lines in "The first thing a Cry-Baby girl learns is, our bazooms are our weapons." Then there's former under-age porn star Traci Lords, who plays Wanda. She puts in a genuinely funny performance here that belies her less-than-stellar past, and has many of the best scenes (she was also good in Waters's "Serial Mom"). Rounding out the Cry-Baby gang are Kim Maguire as Hatchet-Face, who's aptly named (every facial expression she puts on is worth a laugh, and she manages to be both hard-edged and sympathetic), and Darren Burrows (who would later star in "Northern Exposure") as Milton. Susan Tyrrell and Iggy Pop play Cry-Baby's aunt and uncle. Also watch out for Patricia Hearst and David Nelson (Ozzie's son) as Wanda's straight-laced, square-like parents (the courtroom scene involving Wanda and her parents is the funniest scene in the movie), Troy Donahue and Mink Stole(who, like Hearst, is a Waters regular) as Hatchet-Face's parents, Joey Heatherton and Joe Dallesandro as Milton's bible-thumping parents, and Willem Dafoe as a guard at the reform school.What will happen to Cry-Baby and his gang? Will Allison go back to her square ways, or become a permanent member of Cry-Baby's gang? I can only recommend you watch the movie if you haven't yet to find out. All in all, "Cry-Baby" is good, only slightly dirty fun, obviously inspired by both 50s teenage delinquent movies like "Rebel Without a Cause" as well as any number of 50s rock and roll musical movies, with a lot of slapstick and a lot of funny dialogue and a lot of good music. And despite its less subversive leanings, it is a John Waters movie through and through. This is one of my favorite movies, and I've really only scratched the surface of why.

(spoilers) Unfocused and overlong, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 suffers a bit from writer's burnout, and the clichéd sequel's curse. It's pretty difficult to duplicate original magic in Cinema of big hits and so this one follows the pattern. It has an overindulgence in 70s and 80s soundtrack which gets tiresome. While it has a few clever bits of humor with Groot, David Haselhoff and Pacman , it lacks a focused coherent story that the original possessed, and feels like fragmented occurrences. And while the original was a preferred 66/33 mix of seriousness/humor this sequel reverses the mix - and the seriousness and pathos comes too little too late. It's not a bad movie but it doesn't make it to its predecessor's entertainment level and is a tiresome retread. Only toward the last 15 min does it gain some pathos it sorely lacks for the first 100 min or so. 5.5/10 - Mixed to poor.

The best. Malcolm MacDowell is the best. Stanley Kubrick is the best. The score, the effects, the layout, all the best. Anyone bearing bad will for this acknowledgedly stellar film should watch it with their eyelids taped back until they see the truth in the film. It's beautiful, and Kubrick is a perennial creator of beauty. Comparable only to other Kubrick works.

Another retched attempt at horror. Cliché, to say the least. Pointless, I got absolutely nothing out of it. The acting was fair, but it certainly doesn't make up for the lack of any quality writing, cinematography, or editing. Sound was a bad attempt that just became annoying. This script should go in the trash, I would have passed on this after 10 pages. A classic example of all character and no plot. I don't mean that in a "2010 Clash of the Titans" sense of the term "no plot" I mean it literally, in the "teletubies" sense of the term. May possibly be scary to someone who has never seen a film from the horror genre. Certainly not recommended for people who get furious about cut and paste film making. Epic fail, sorry Liv.

Deep Impact is a sci fi film, of course. But it is also a story about how relationships change, grow, and deteriorate in the face of cataclysmic destruction and probable death. It is these mixed themes that produce mixed reviews: is this a relationship film? An apocalyptic sci fi blow up film? Yes, to both questions. And doing both means the doing either better, than anything else out there, won't happen in the time allotted.Still, it is satisfying in both themes. Great in either. No. But good enough. (Consider that people respond with commendable rationality in the face of certain death and the technology depicted is 10 years ahead of what we have at this writing).Still, the film involves the viewer sufficiently to force one to consider how she or he would respond in the face of the events depicted. That level of personal involvement is rare in most current cinema and makes this a film worthy of return viewing.

This dark comedy based on real-life events is the movie that defined the Coen brothers as the influential filmmakers they are today. With their incredible writings and their wittiness of genre-mixing, these two have made one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood. set in the snowy town of Fargo, North Dakota, this film stars William H. Macy as Jerry Lundegaard, a car dealer obsessed with being wealthy who hires a duo of ruthless criminals Carl Showalter (played by Steve Buscemi) and Gaear Grismud (played by Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife Jean and exchange her for a large amount of money by her father. Before too long when the plan goes terribly wrong and turns into a bloodbath, this heinous crime gains the attention of a pregnant police officer Margo Gunderson (played by Frances McDormand) who comes into investigation. What comes from this crime story is some amazing performances by a talent cast, a polished screenplay, and some of the most elegantly written characters ever put to screen.As this is a Coen brothers film, instead of conveying a straight dark tone, this film illustrates a dark and gritty story with a touch of humor sprinkled throughout its story. And with no little surprise, the Coen brothers achieve this quite well. From the opening scene, we are introduced to William H. Macy's character who is quickly learn is up to no good, and does compelling job at hiding his mischievousness from his wife and son. Nearly every scene of his presence is unpredictable and leaves you attention glued to him. Macy really stands out in this role and makes himself a good name for playing such a despicable husband and father his character is. The real fun however, occurs during the scenes of the two criminals played by Steve Buscemi and Peter Stomare, from the scene of kidnapping the main character's wife to the astonishing climax at the end. The story grows increasingly engaging and dark in the amidst of it's satirical tone, and every scene these two are in hits the right notes, whether they make you laugh or have you shocked to the edge of your seat. These two give such dazzling performances, especially Steve Buscemi who fits just right in his character considering his role he portrayed in Quentin Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'. While these actors nail their roles, the biggest icing on the cake comes from Frances McDormand who gives a strong performance as the pregnant officer who goes on investigation of the crime. Standing as the most charismatic character, McDormand embraces her role diligently and never disappoints. It is no surprise her performance landed her an Academy Award.Fargo is a fun and entertaining experience, and the Coen brothers do a tremendous job. This a film with amazing performances, a spectacular screenplay, and well developed characters that stand strong. It is definitely one of the best works by the Coen brothers, and something every movie fanatic shouldn't miss. I am so ready to see their next film 'Hail Caeser!' as it now out in theaters this week.

After waiting with baited breath for this film to surface I finally made it to the cinema yesterday to see it. The British Nationals have been going crazy for this film. Needless to say being a 'Spaced' fan and a (HUGE!) zombie-flick fan I had very high expectations for this film.It is with regret, however, that I'm not rating this film nearly as high as I wanted to...which is a shame. Yes, potentially, the concept sounded extremely promising - Simon Pegg is a very intelligent and witty guy and his work on 'Spaced' and 'Big Train' was superb.It just failed to raise any serious humour in my eyes that was so evident in Pegg's other (and earlier) work. I know many people would have seen this film with preconceptions of his style and humour but, for me, Shaun's humour lacked a fair deal of subtlety and the gags were few and far between. Coupled with the more 'serious' element behind the film - like losing your best friend and having to kill your own mother (!!) - the film becomes a mixed affair that isn't quite as light-hearted as one would imagine. There's a fulfilling amount of gore to keep some of the horror-fans satisfied and the fan-boys among us will no doubt pick up on some of the more subtle allusions to the horror genre. There were also a couple of shock moments which were successfully done but overall it seemed to be carrying a few too many flaws and it's positioning between horror, comedy, rom-com and satire seems so tightly interwoven that it becomes a muddled affair whereby it doesn't know it it's truly coming or going. In closing - good special effects for the zombies, good soundtrack, Bill Nighy, some nice cameo roles, some mildly funny slapstick moments but sadly could have been considerably better. 5/10

This is a good scary film and worth seeing if you like lots of blood and gore. The photography is outstanding, the characters well casted and the action almost nonstop. It has no redeeming value, doesn't pretend to, but it is entertaining in a morbid sort of way, which is what you anticipated when you bought your ticket. Face it, many of us want to get as close to the gore as possible without really having to touch or smell it. If you want a serious drama, or a Walt Disney type film, why would you even consider going to see a film like this. The film is targeted toward maximum box office return and the producers scored on this point as it cost less than ten million dollars to produce but will easily gross over a 100 million at the box office. Give em what they want, I say, and they will pay for the slaughter.

Mars Attacks (1996): Dir: Tim Burton / Cast: Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Natalie Portman, Pierce Brosnan, Michael J. Fox: Satire of alien invasion films where little green people invade earth. They have ray guns that can fry people into skeletons. The title is a satire onto itself presenting a media frenzy. Great idea with a clever solution that bares resemblance to Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. The structure is such a mess that one must wonder if director Tim Burton allowed everything to run amuck while the cameras run. Burton is a visual genius with such films as Beetlejuice and Batman but here the visuals are plainly the only element of function. The gigantic cast is a waste including Jack Nicholson as the President and Vegas hotel owner. Glenn Close plays the First Lady. Natalie Portman plays their ignored daughter. Pierce Brosnan plays the President's chief of staff who is abducted with Sarah Jessica Parker where the aliens remove their heads and place them on the bodies of dogs. Michael J. Fox plays a reporter or media personality who doesn't last long in the celebrity wasteland that this film becomes. And the list goes on but many of them are nuked before we care. The film seems to be a parody take on old alien invasion films and the spirit is there but the payoff seems to be off target. The visual effects and production are a payoff but the story turns to guck. Score: 5 / 10

I am studying media studies and have been asked to study this film for my examinations....Well, there are supposed to be negative connotations to any exam material I have to study but this one isn't.Donnie Darko, a story about a teenage boy, who depending on your view, is experiencing hallucinations or is ahead of time. An unusual concept of time-travel, which has been experienced in the past but not quite like this, set in an unusual time zone of the 1980s. The reason I say its an unusual time zone is because the 1980s is very recent history and not many films set them selves in history that recent. It's genius.This film is a masterpiece, it makes the audience search for the answers by watching it a second and perhaps a third time. Also it's one of the few films that I don't think can ever be remade, or at least to the same standard. With the clever use of CGI, using just enough to tell the story that it isn't overloaded with the special effects.The acting is the root of the story, the actors provide the anchor in the surrealism. Jake Gyllenhaal and Jena Malone are superb in their portrayal of teenagers of the 1980s, their characters are quite obscured also.It is an interesting film to watch, you'll remember it whether you liked it or not.

A top secret organization known as G.I.Joe must take on an arms dealer hell bend on destroying parts of the world. In watching the previews for this film the first thing that came to my mind was "This is going to suck". The over the top cheese factor was all over the previews. The suits they wear to make them run faster, jump higher, was ridiculous. Not to mention the horribly miscast lead of Tatum and the out of the blue decision to include Quaid. With all of this going against, I finished the film was a smile on my face. I was...wait for it....entertained. I thought I was going to hate this film, it didn't feel like a G.I. Joe film to me, it felt like they were just cashing in on the character names and fan base. This still feels true, but the film has fun with itself and never tries to be more than the sum of its parts. When you compare it to other loud and dumb action films of the summer, like Transformers 2 and Wolverine, G.I. Joe is better. The plot is inane and they do screw up some characters. They had a chance to do something special with the "Rise of Cobra" but the sequences of his "flashback" seem wasted. The character himself is weird and nothing what I, or the fans for the most part, expected. Is he bad? In those terms yes, but for some strange reasons he works in this film. He was more interesting than any of the other characters. Scarlett is heavily underwritten as is Heavy Duty. In the realms of this film they do their job, heavy gunner and sex pot. Duke, the aforementioned Tatum is the main character and Tatum plays it wooden. He has a relationship with the Baroness, but it's hastily thrown together and doesn't have the weight it should. The is the same for Cobra and his relationships in the film.The special effects are mixed here, sometimes it looks horrible, such as Destro's face and the obvious green screen moments. Other times it blends in relatively well with the action scenes. The attack on the Joes and the Paris chase sequences are well done and thrilling. I get excited seeing a group of highly trained "bad-guys" fight highly trained "good-guys". I would guess that's why I liked the movie as much as I did. That and every scene with Snake Eyes. Who, for a character who doesn't speak, has more back story to him than most of the other characters.This film is not as bad as everyone says it is, it is pure popcorn entertainment with over the top action sequences and some cheese. The 3rd act takes place underwater and there are fight sequences in underwater vehicles. It's a neat spin on the space battles you see in Star Wars. I expected trash, got high-octane entertainment. I might be really generous with this score and on a second viewing it might go lower, but as I said before...I was entertained.

This movie was done JUST FINE for the style they worked with.What saddens me is nobody has a good excuse for why this was a bad movie, I see these things, mainly.1. Style vs. Plot Explanation Take this into account if you don't get anything else from this review. It's done in first person style, so we only know as much as the kids know, whatever it is they are doing. It happens in a matter of a few hours, and I dunno about you, but all monster movies take a day or so after the initial attack to learn how it all started. Also, if you remember correctly, they had a discussion in the subway tunnels where hub suggested it could have been hibernating in the ocean for thousands of years without our knowledge. The truth of this we won't know.2. Style vs. Reality Get a friggin grip. They couldn't win here. If they did the movie EXACTLY like a cheap digicam would be, EVERYONE would complain of the horrid video quality, the terrible sound, and the constant shaking (which i will get to shortly). Of COURSE they used an amazing camera to make this film. Of COURSE they stopped shaking the camera to see something cool. Who would go see a movie in Stereo? Who would go see a movie that's heavily pixelated? Who would go see a movie with almost indistinguishable text? NOBODY.3. Motion Sickness You guys are the biggest sissies ever. What, do you have to vomit when you ride a bike, too?The camera shaking wasn't nearly as bad as one of the fight scenes in Bourne Supremacy, and honestly, the theatre I went to was packed and no one complained about motion sickness, the theatre my friend went to was packed and no one complained, and none of my friends or their friends got sick either.Take some Airborne or something next time and suck it up you pansies.As for the film and my opinion of it.The film was great with what they worked with. Granted the first 10 or 15 minutes were boring and served no purpose other than to show that the main character loved a girl and couldn't exactly tell her.Once the "earthquake" (which I might add made me laugh, considering that no earthquake makes an enormous booming sound like that) hits, we're thrust into panic, AS WE SHOULD BE. The kids all run outside to see what's going on, then things blow up and debris goes flying and it's lots of mayhem. We learn that this guy is starting to get scared for the girl he loves and needs to get a hold of her, though the need to isn't so great until the Brooklyn Bridge deal, then he freaks out because he doesn't want her dieing without being certain she know he loves her.THIS, FOR ALL YOU THICK HEADED MOVIE NOOBS, IS THE PLOT.Simple as it may be, that's what it is. He is in a panic, his adrenaline is rushing, he is not thinking clearly; as no human being would be doing in that situation. They have their little adventure through New York, getting attacked and still remaining in the dark about what's attacking them. They go to get the girl against all odds, and it is when they pull her off the bar (WHICH DID NOT PIERCE HER HEART NO DUH) that the character has a clear sense of thought. They immediately go for safety.The end of the movie happens, and it's very simple. Everyone is screwed, period. End of story, have fun with it.I liked it, they dealt with it well, and even though the plot was simple, all monster movies have a simple plot. This was a monster movie, a complex plot would've ruined it.Good work guys, next time you should actually enjoy the movie instead of grabbing your clipboards and analyzing every instant of it to see how perfect it is.

Sean Astin stars in the true story of Daniel E. Ruettiger, aka Rudy who wanted more than anything else to play for Notre Dame's legendary Fighting Irish football team. To be part of the legend that is Notre Dame, the legend of Knute Rockne, George Gipp, The Four Horsemen, Frank Leahy, Johnny Lujack, Terry Brennan right up to when Astin entered the college with Ara Parseghian as the coach.The right actor was cast in the lead, Sean Astin is short, but built like outdoor brick lavatory. Good enough for high school football where only a very few go on to college on athletic scholarships and those are big guys who might just make it in the professional leagues. But in Indiana, especially around South Bend, it's Notre Dame which is the be all, end all for football. Very similar in culture that way to southern towns, but with a Catholic twist to it.We see young Rudy listening to records of Knute Rockne's fighting speeches and imitating them. If memory serves the one he's listening to is the same one Pat O'Brien used in Knute Rockne - All American. Astin actually makes the team when he impresses everyone with his grit and heart. And he proves to be more than a mascot type, he's an inspiration to his teammates and to the audience watching Rudy.Look for fine performances from Ned Beatty as his blue collar father, Robert Prosky as a sympathetic priest/member of the Notre Dame faculty and Charles S. Dutton who is maintenance worker and former member of the Fighting Irish fallen on some hard times.Rudy's a very old fashioned film, the kind Hollywood used to make in abundance, but sadly not any more. Great viewing for football fans of all ages.

Magnolia deals with basic human themes: deceit, despair, disappointment and redemption. The wonderful soundtrack/score unifies the characters' lives and magnifies their emotions.A superb cast, makes it a film not to be missed!

This dark movie (dark in every sense of the word) asks the question, "What is a GOOD man?" On the surface the Hanks' character (Sullivan) is a brooding, nearly evilly cold hitman---almost the stereotype of the "family-man" mobster. But seen through the eyes of his older son who is, acc. to the character, "so much like me", we find ourselves at least partially rooting for this bad guy. Tender but never maudlin, the movie explores the darkest side of the mob while examining the bonds between father and son as they develop through tragedy---a tragedy in good part of Sullivan's own doing. The ending provides a small ray of hope, a bit of literal light on the beach, but the overall tone is disturbing. When asked if you "like" the film, you will probably say no. But is it worth seeing? Absolutely YES, if only for the fine performances of Hanks, Newman and the boy.

In space no one can hear you scream. Officially, Aliens should be called an action movie, not a horror like the first, because it is not stop and the special effects are top of the line. Acid for blood, and humans for hosts, the aliens of the film are THE image for aliens you will think of from now on. I've seen this movie countless times, and have never picked out a real flaw. It has so many great characters.. Hudson, Bishop, newt, Hicks, all the marines, and ofcoarse Ripley and the aliens themselves. I loved Bishop as the android, and Hudson's panic and foul mouthed presence earned him a lot of fans. The story is a colony establishing an atmosphere on a planet loose communication with 'the company' running the show. USMC marines are sent in to see what's going on and Ripley the survivor of the 1st film reluctantly agrees to go along. The director even lets you get to know each marines personality, each one is a little unique and I thought the cast was really a timeless one. There's some amazing combination of puppets, animatronics, and miniatures used in the film from the drop ships to the amazing face huggers to the new queen alien from. There's enough beeps on motion trackers, futuristic weapons, and ice cold metal cooridors to fill 3 movies. Not to mention this time 'it's war' with literally crowds of aliens coming at us full speed. The most memorable moments are of the crew preparing for the mission at the meal table and bishop the android doing the knife trick at 100 miles an hour between the fingers of a marine who laid his hand on the table (Hudson). But the mega scene is when Ripley has to find the young character (only survivor colonist) named newt, which leads her directly into the alien breeding chamber. The alien queen is simply amazingly done, and the director Jim Cameran really convinced the effects guys to go all the way with it. Well it worked. The result was amazing and pricless. What really made Aliens an absolute action and horror gem was the writing and the amount that was there was just so richly done I was so very impressed. It's by far the best of the series of movies and the best alien film of all time.

when film starts and i see a person who has challenging in his own brain and life to create a world better with his opinion and that's called by mathematics , so far at the end of the movie that was best and fascinating job . i think the best part of the movie is the characterizations of actors . they seems not like playing an actor. its like they're own life and living in it . this part had a very good score. i could not imagine whats real and whats not when i was for the first time watching it , but in second time it bounded in my bones and thought me love is not that quite simple as we see. i can explain it and everyone should see the movie , its a masterpiece .

The film is great, the actors are just fine, especially Helen Hunt [Carol], although she should have removed her bra BEFORE she went in the rain to visit Mervin. [She had it on in the street but not when she was upstairs outside Udall's door]The dog[s] was/were great.

Every now and then a movie comes along like Whiplash, were its transcendent themes, flawless performances and direction make it an instant classic. The movie examines an old-school, lambasting style of teaching which is cruel in action but good in its intent. It asks how far should someone go to push another to greatness and at what point are they pushing them away. The story focuses on the Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), an ambitious young jazz drummer, who is attending Shaffer Conservatory of Music, the most prestigious music school in America. Andrew has always been a loner and this remains the case at Shaffer where he is picked on by classmates and has no close friends. As a result Andrew spends his free time going to the movies with his father (Paul Reiser) and listening to his drumming hero Buddy Rich. During a late night practice session, Andrew's dedication and talent catches the attention of Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons), the school's most ruthless teacher whose intense methods are legendary. Fletcher recruits Andrew to play in the schools top band which he runs akin to a military boot camp. Feelings and dignity take a rhythmic beating in Fletchers obsessive pursuit in driving his students to play pitch perfect jazz. His special interest in Andrew sees him bear the brunt of his unrelenting teaching style and he must endure many a metaphorical cymbal thrown at his head. Andrew succumbs to the constant mind game by falling into a state of obsession to please the unpleasable Fletcher. He drums until his hands bleed and shaves off all other elements of his life in fear they will only hold him back from eminence. One flaw is the supporting characters are one dimensional, inserted into the story purely to serve the main characters, although this is only a minor gripe due to the sheer magnetism of the leads.The director is able to draw the audience into the beauty of jazz in both setting and sound. Close-up shots of player's instruments show their intricate details and the dark lighting sets the scene for the emotional battles and musical performances in Shaffer's old rehearsal rooms. The grandiose jazz music will have you tapping along in your seat and feeling the same frustration as the musicians each time Fletcher cuts off the music mid-play with a swift clench of his fist, as you yearn for more.

Out of some masochistic, morbid curiosity, I was suckered into watching this on the big screen. Suckered by the 'rave' reviews, trailers and opinions of associates. For years, I mean years, I never, ever wanted a sequel. I never felt Blade Runner needed answers. If the movie seemed too ambiguous, than maybe, just maybe, that was its intention. Try reading the book. It's the same. What is Deckard? Phillip K. Dick never told us. The whole point to the story was to question what makes us human.2049's attempt in answering this question, to me, robbed itself of what made the first movie, so good.I did not walk into this movie expecting not to like it however. I put all my bias aside, and watched it with an open mind, a positive attitude, full of hope and wonder.For me, the movie seemed too clean, too digitised, almost sanitised of the rich, tangible atmosphere that made the first movie so real.I never really felt for K. Ryan Gosling was, well...Ryan Gosling. Its obviously just me, but his acting does nothing to make me care for this character. Harrison Ford's burnt out, old version of Deckard, also did nothing for me. Jared Leto was as hollow and pretentious as expected. Phillip K. Dick never followed up on his book, because everything you needed to know, and the point of the story, was right there inside.For all its details, 2049's execution left me uninspired, unmoved and care-free.Even the visuals never grabbed me. As stylised as they tried so hard to be, they did not detract from how I was left feeling, cold and empty.K's virtual girlfriend, to me, epitomised the whole film. Empty, detached and without heart or soul.I watched Blade Runner again on Blu-ray, just to make me feel better. I still get a lump in my throat at Roy Batty's dying words. And I still feel for Deckard and Rachel when they fall in love. Vangelis sounds as fresh today as ever. And the street scenes, in all their colourful, wet and grimy glory, sell to me, what the future is very much looking like being.None of those emotions crossed over into the sequel, for me anyway.

A great adaption of the cinderella story, one of my favorites. The thing that stands out the most is the "G" rating. It is wonderful to watch a movie that is entertaining without profanity, nudity, or violence. The performances are good as is the plot. Even though eveyone knows how it will end, it just doesn't matter. A perferct movie for any family!

Shawshank Redemption is a story about freedom, justice, and hope. The movie stars Morgan Freeman as Ellis "Red" Redding, Tim Robbins as Andy DuFresne, Bob Gunton as Warden Norton and Clancy Brown as Captain Byron Hadley. As the movie starts off, Andy, who is a young, successful banker, was on trail for the murder of his wife and her lover, a golf pro. Throughout the trial and the entire movie, Andy declares his innocence. Andy was sent to Shawshank Prison, where he is expected to live out the rest of his days. Andy met and befriends Red; a man known for getting things into the prison from the outside; after he needed a rock hammer for sculpting rocks. During their conversation, Red gives Andy some sound advice and thus starts their relationship. During a work release program, Andy steps out on a limb and offers sound financial advice to Hadley. And from that day on, Andy's life was forever changed. The theme of this movie was freedom and hope. Freedom and hope in a dark place like prison is hard to see. However, being in prison didn't change the spirit of Andy. Andy's poise and demeanor never changed. He strolled around the yard like he was a free man. According to Red, Andy had an invisible coat on that shielded him from the woes of prison. Life was about something bigger and better, even if you are in prison. Never giving up and never stop dreaming. Brooks, played by James Whitmore, was an example of a person that gave up his freedom and hope. Upon the determination that he would be released, he panicked and tried to find a way to stay in prison. He knew that life outside of prison would be different. Brooks just didn't see any hope in true freedom. This movie reminds me of the movie, Freedom Writers. No matter how bad or how negative the situation, there is a glimmer of hope somewhere. It is remarkable how a teacher of an inner city school teaches kids to look for the good things through writing, despite what happens outside that classroom. Both movies define how to beat the odds. Sound was a keen sense of theme in this movie. The movie had a voice-over narration of Red. There are several other examples in this movie where sound and music bring relevance to the theme. When the movie starts off, Andy is sitting in the car and the song playing is about love and how he cares for his wife despite the news she has just given him. It shows that Andy had hope that their relationship can be mended. The squawk of Jake, the bird, has importance on the theme. Freedom to him was new, just as it was to Brooks. Another example is the song Andy selected to play on the PA system. It gave the prisoners a sense of freedom and hope. It took them beyond the prison walls, if only for a few moments. Andy referred to music as something the prison can't take away from him. It was hope. Another technique used to support the theme was the lighting and angling of the camera. After Hadley paid up on his end of the deal, the glow and ambiance that came off Andy was priceless. He glowed and basked in the ability to be normal again. The director used high-key lighting in this shot. The angle of the camera as it focused in on Red when he discussed the seriousness of hope and what wild dreams will get up support the theme. It was an extreme close-up. The camera seems to draw narrower and narrower on Red like he was describing hope in prison. This action of the camera reflected hope. The scene in the river and during the storm used some environmental effects and lights to support the theme. Another scene was the brightness of the ocean and beach when Red got off the bus. It was so bright and crisp. The scene showed Red's reason to stay hopeful, be free, and to try to live again. This movie is a classic. It tells of corruption and issues of freedom in a prison system. Most lose hope and conform to the ways of prison life. Just because you are in prison for life doesn't mean you have to give prison your life. Will Andy ever get redemption and get to tell his story? Will anyone ever believe him? Hope can only go so far.

This one makes it 27 favorable reviews of LEGION out of 75 total.(For what those stats are worth.) And the writer of one of the negative reviews kept leaving words out of his sentences, so I don't know what the hell he was talking about. I though it rocked, particularly for a film released unreviewed. Got goosebumps three times ~ from IDEAS, not special effects. Angels were cool, though.Don't understand all the bad acting comments, I thought it had a great cast (loved Kevin Durand as Gabriel & I don't think Lucas Black can do bad work.) As I sit here now, I can think of some plot quibbles, but my Very First law of Movie-Going is: If I don't notice anything wrong while I'm sitting in the theater seat, it doesn't count...once upon a time I saw about 125 films a year in theaters, as I get older, with less stamina (I'm 55) I still see about 45-50 ~ LEGION is far from the worst I will see this year

lets get it straight...i knew this movie was gonna be bad...but was way worse...this was jus like a stage performance or like a series....it was never upto the standards of a superhero movie.the first half was a little better but second half made me ache.Ryan reynolds was good but he didn't get a good script,shame.Mark Strong was also wasted and the concept itself was funny as i didn't know anything about the comic.but even they cud've managed to make it better.this was a total let down work except the 3d which was better than recent movies.This movie cud've at least been like Thor which solely was an entertainer with mediocre script and good action.i think Green lantern was made for comic fans.others just stay away.

Let's start this off with a reward offering. I'll pay anyone $20 if they can explain to me, in detail, the full plot and synopsis of "Inherent Vice," front to back. That's a good place to start, eh?The New York Film Festival press and audiences given the gift of a first look at Paul Thomas Anderson's hotly anticipated "Inherent Vice" starring Joaquin Phoenix and an all-star cast. Based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon, rumors flew about for months that the novel is a tough read and that the translation from book to film could be confusing in the hands of an auteur filmmaker like Anderson. Well, to a certain extent, they are absolutely correct. "Inherent Vice" is such a mind trip, one that will probably make you want to enroll in drug rehab by the end credits. What's amazing about it is even though you, nor I will probably "get it," and there's way more questions than answers at the moment, I cannot wait to revisit it again to start seeking those things out. You can see a little of Anderson's entire filmography.Our "basic synopsis" is the story of Larry "Doc" Sportello, who in the 1970's, begins to search for his missing former girlfriend. The other things that accompany those facts, is a hallucination of laughs, satire, and magnificent filmmaking abilities.Let's start with thanking the good Lord for Paul Thomas Anderson and his love of 35mm. Even though the screening did not show the film in that quality (the public screening however did), there's a charm that's still embedded within all of Anderson's film that pays homage to all the classic films of history. This is also partly thanks to Academy Award winning DP Robert Elswit, who can frame a scene to tension and success. Much like his past efforts such as "The Master," "There Will Be Blood," and "Boogie Nights," there's a magnitude of a visual master's exercises on display. He crafts provocative and engaging players that fully mesmerize you for its duration. On the top of his game, once again is the genius that is Joaquin Phoenix. He's hilarious, and nothing like "The Dude" as many will compare him. He's a three-dimensional character with layers, fully invested in the story, and best of all, utterly believable. In a quirky, detective mystery such as this, you expect some outrageous behavior that can sometimes run false. Call me crazy, I believed nearly all. Phoenix is pure, ludicrous, and keeps you fixated entirely. You couldn't ask for a more dependable thespian at this time in cinema. There's even a weird but obvious comparison to Freddie Quell, as if Freddie's illegitimate child got into drugs and missed out on the alcoholism.The supporting players are as rich as any Anderson creation before. Finally back to large ensembles, where he has shined time and time again in films like "Magnolia," he assembles one of the strongest casts seen in 2014. Like a rock and roll star, Josh Brolin owns the stage with a savage and vicious dedication to his character, he stands out as one of the finest performances of the year. I adored him, and it might be his finest outing yet, and something that could ring him some much deserved awards attention. If you don't know her name yet, Katherine Waterston will be on the tongues of many for years to come. As Shasta Fay Hepworth, you'll find an enigmatic character with an entrancing and sensual aura. At times, feeling like a mixture of Rollergirl from "Boogie Nights" and Claudia Wilson Gator from "Magnolia," Waterston is one of engrossing and compelling characters of the year. It's an awards worthy performance, baring the soul of a performer that understands her purpose, Waterston is plain magnificent. You will get big chuckles from Benicio del Toro, Owen Wilson, and Martin Short, all of which make their mark. In one strong scene, Jena Malone leaves her mark while Michael Kenneth Williams could have set the screen on fire with more time than what he was given. Sasha Pieterse (fabulous as always), Reese Witherspoon (reminding us why we loved Johnny and June Cash together so much), Eric Roberts (yearning for a larger role at this time in his career), Joanna Newsom (our new female Morgan Freeman of this generation's narrators), and Maya Rudolph (who needs to team up with hubby more often), all shine.Why the world isn't recognizing Jonny Greenwood as one of the most innovative and talented composers yet is beyond me. Once again, everything on-screen is elevated by his eerie composition and whimsical take on the 70's aura. Not to mention, the soundtrack may be THE album of the year. You can't tell me that you won't have that on repeat seconds after viewing. You also get a richly realized costume design by Mark Bridges and honest sets by David Crank and Amy Wells. It's a technical masterpiece for sure."Inherent Vice" is such a strange demon. Hard to say you love, if you don't comprehend it all yet, but with enough magic to keep coming back for more. It's one of the best offbeat and pecuilar monsters seen on screen this year, and you just might fall for its potent nature.

I knew very little about this movie and went into the theatre totally unaware of the story, the only thing I knew was the Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellwegger (spelling ?) were in the movie.I will have to say that I was totally surprised and enjoyed every minute of this movie. The acting, script, cinematography were abosuletly the best I had seen in a long, long time. But what impressed me the most was how the whole cast played their characters and how the movie didn't really focus on just one actor or actress, but where everyone was important in the movie.I would like to say one thing about Nicole Kidman. "BRAVO !!" for your role as a Ada Monroe. In my humble opinion this is by far your greatest work. Keep up the great work.

I am not impressed. Not even slightly. I am lost as to the point of this film. One character is a pathetic alcoholic and the other is a manipulator who makes a living from lies. This is a great combination if the writer actually gets around to making something happen but in this case we just cruise along watching a whole lot of nothing. There is no plot, the characters do not develop in any meaningful sense and nothing really happens for two hours. The only thing I took from the film is that it takes a grade AAA moron with serious issues to get sucked in by such a ridiculous cult. The two main actors do a great job of portraying moron and ridiculous...it is a pity they were left to struggle with such a nothing script. Many people were upset that this film was only nominated in the acting categories at the Oscars...the acting is the only thing that saves it. Everything else is just a borefest. My apologies to the arty farty crowd who think this is a great film because they were told it was. I got nothing from it.

Having seen RONIN you wonder: Where has John Frankenheimer been all those years? Of course he has been working steadily. But were his projects the right ones for this master story teller? He could have contributed a lot more. All those car chase scenes make you relive the frenzy predecessors of the early Seventies, e.g. BULLITT or THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Every minute of it is more exciting and terrifying than all those digital dinosaurs of our days. And you notice: A great film director must be able to produce a good car chase. Even Spielberg once knew this (see THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS). Of course: This is a very masculine movie. There is just one woman, and she is not a sweetie and certainly overshadowed by all those high calibre super machos around her. But there is no ridiculous so called actress who ruins this movie's credibility.There is also no ridiculous love story. And there are no ridiculous sex scenes. In short: This is not the right movie for teenage movie goers. Stay at home - and leave this movie to more mature people. Because what counts here is intelligence. Rarely to be found in Hollywood nowadays, but it is possible. Nevertheless RONIN is full of nail biting tension. So what more do you want? Finally: This movie is so cool. It never wants to overwhelm you, with the exception of its visual force. Thank you, John Frankenheimer, for this one. I can't get enough of it.

Ever since I've been following the Award season, I was wondering what was exactly about this 'Jacob Tremblay' kid. I had never heard about him, but the more awards nominations he got, the more pictures of "Room" I was discovering, the more intriguing that skinny pale-looking child with unusually long hair was, especially that movie snapshot of his stunned look crossing as you could tell he was witnessing something of hypnotic beauty.First, I thought Tremblay was portraying some kind of autistic kid, then the story of a mother and her child trapped in a room made me expect a movie about confinement, and the ability of creating a world out of a horrible situation. And the kid looked strange enough to make me believe that he was victim of a condition forcing him to be isolated. Lenny Abrahamson's "Room" was the kind of film that is surrounded by an aura of mystery, but that alone wouldn't have been enough without the whole awards-buzz, so like many others, I saw it to see what was good about it.At first, I was disrupted by the whole voice-over narration, I wasn't really ready for some abstraction à la "Tree of Life", and I wished the kid wouldn't be too strange, even within the story's strangeness. But doubts immediately vanished, Jack was a normal kid who loved to play, to please his mother Joy, played by Brie Larson, to be told that he's grown up, to write, to draw, except that everything he does, and been doing since he was born, took place in that small shed, whose only door to the world is a skylight. And as the story goes, we get the circumstances of their presence there, especially when there's a sort of figure named Old Nick who's the only known outsider.The film echoes many news items about women or kids who've been abducted for years and years, being raped and having children with their own captor, the kind of stories that make you wonder how can anyone survive from such conditions. It's the mark of great films not to answer questions directly but to make you answering them on your own. Jack, unlike Joy, doesn't know what he missed and the whole world, as far as he's concerned is the room and whatever is in the room is real. A mouse is real, a spoon or a kitchen sink or a wardrobe are called by 'mister' or 'mrs' but whatever appears in that box named TV is made of pictures and can't count as real. And as far as humanity goes, there's him, his mother and Old Nick, played by Sean Bridgers.Jack can't be unhappy or his unhappiness is limited to his world. However, his mother spent only 7 years of her life there; she not only knows what she's missing but she knows damn well what Jack is missing. And if Jacob Tremblay deserves the praise for his performance, there's something in Larson's acting that cuts straight to the heart. She is devastated but she must hide it,, the presence of Jack is the only thing that keeps her alive, otherwise, she would have killed herself. Jack is her skylight. But there comes a point where enough is enough, and for his own good, she can't let Jack drown in a fantasy-world that might eventually destroy him. This is a story of a mother's responsibility, and she's got to stop pretending and get her son out of there.She first thinks of faking illness so Nick can take Jack to the hospital but instead of that, Nick goes outside to buy antibiotics. She then teaches Jack how to play dead, so she can wraps him under a carpet and ask Nick to 'bury' him, this is where Jack must free himself. They say even a frail mother can increase tenfold her strength if her child is in danger, the same goes when Nick wants to check the body. Joy learned how to fake emotions, but now, she has to make it 'Oscar-worthy' so that Nick is convinced not only to take the body but not to bury him in the garden and take him on his truck. Joy keeps her head on the carpet not to let anything betray her nervousness, and the plan works. I guess there's a justice if Larson wins the Oscar if only for that scene where she gave her best acting in order to forever stop acting after that, the climax of her room years of pretension.And a lesser film would have made it the real 'climax', and make "Room" a sort of mother-and-son version of "Life is Beautiful" with a heart-warming slow-motion reunion at the end, people crying and some cheerful happy-ending music but "Room" is respectful enough to our intelligence not to tell us that everything will go perfectly right after such an experience. The second act consists on Joy and Jack coping with their trauma, and building new relationship with family members who's either strangers or estranged to their world. "Room" isn't about people stuck in a room during seven years, but stuck in the world after such experience, and this time, it's harder for Jack.Indeed, I finally saw what was beyond that picture, Jack had a stunned 'where am I?' born-baby look, with his vision blurred because of the years spent in obscurity, he was reborn, but life will go very fast for him. One day, he'll ask his grandmother (Joan Allen) to cut his hair (a vivid symbol of "Room" days, his Samson-like 'strength' as Joy told him) and this action ironically makes him even stronger, and is a positive signal for Joy. Then they visit the room again and Jack realizes how small it was, just as when we visit a childhood place. He didn't grow much physically after the "Room" but he could finally enjoy life now that he discovered how wonderfully big it was.

Simply awesome! So incredibly brilliant in all its details. Jean Luc Besson surpassed his other movie "perfect" movie, Nikita (the original movie, no the TV series, blah). I can't believe it's already been more than ten years, because if it were to come out today as a new release, it would raffle away all movies awards. Take any scene, and allow your eyes to wander around, look at every details and how much thought has been put into it. There are so many lines in the script that are now memorable quotes. Discontent reviewers may have failed to appreciate the breadth of erudition packed behind so many of those lines. For instance, the "Are you Germans?" quote is a relish of the pre-colonial old world on the brink of WWI, you can't grasp its cultural meaning without this sensitivity.Simply a masterpiece from a genius artist.

This is could easily be a copy of Battle Royale for children. I do not understand why the author of the books would copy so blatantly an outstanding book/film and turn it into this. The Japanese film(which is also based on a book) is absolutely shocking an breathtaking. If you have not seen it yet, please do. Nonetheless, hunger games is a watchable teen movie. I don't understand why they had to repeat some scenes over and over at the beginning. Its a long film with not much action. The ending seems rushed and very much predictable. It could be worse. But has been better, in Japanese.

David Fincher is, in my opinion, one of the most talented directors in modern Hollywood. I'm almost certain the man could tackle any project and create gold; for the record, I forgive him for ALIEN 3…that was ruined by the studio, not him. GONE GIRL is what happens when Fincher dips his toe in the genre of Lifetime movies. Not surprisingly, it's way better than it probably should be. I was raised in a predominantly female household so I am very familiar with Lifetime and its brand of "entertainment", and I can't stand it. When I first read the premise of Fincher's GONE GIRL, I wasn't thrilled (it sounded so…generic) but I was more than willing to give him a chance. He did not disappoint. GONE GIRL is the story of Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy (Rosamund Pike) Dunne. We're guided through the beginning of their happy relationship and follow up through their marriage and eventual hardship during the economic recession. Things in the Dunne household seem shaky at best when the unthinkable occurs. Amy goes missing one morning, on the day of their fifth anniversary. There's evidence of a struggle and fears turn to those of kidnapping. The town rallies around Nick as the investigation becomes a national spectacle, but the media isn't being too friendly with Nick's, almost eerily calm, demeanor and secrets come to light that paint him in a horrible light. As the story unfolds in Fincher's creative fashion, we will learn: did Nick Dunne murder his wife?Even if the premise sounded depressingly generic, there was never a doubt that GONE GIRL would be a fantastically produced project. The cinematography, the music, the editing…it's all got Fincher and crews' usual brand of excellence. The creative cutting and the structuring of the story into two very different halves is a fantastic bit of audience manipulation. We spend the first hour or so of the movie observing from one perspective as the investigation begins and the conservative fear-mongering news media (epitomized by Missi Pyle's Nancy Grace-esque Ellen Abbot) demonizes his every move. The evidence piles up and it becomes easier and easier to believe Nick might've killed his wife. Then the movie takes a drastic swing in the other direction. The truth about Amy's disappearance is way more twisted than Nick could've imagined. It all boils down the fact that Nick and Amy are one of the most messed up couples you'll ever meet. The flashbacks paint them in the usual light of your average struggling couple and GONE GIRL removes the sheen to reveal the insanity behind the scenes. The movie is an excellent piece of work and another success under Fincher's direction, even if it doesn't achieve the level of his greats (e.g. THE SOCIAL NETWORK, SE7EN, etc.). All of the elements come together to create a tense movie that grabs hold of you because you can't wait to see how it's all resolved in the end, and the pitch perfect casting makes it all the better.Ben Affleck gets a lot of hate and I never quite understood it. He's done some garbage but most in Hollywood have. He's also done a lot of great stuff, both behind and in front of the camera. He's excellent in GONE GIRL. He's already got a vibe that makes him come across as kind of arrogant and aloof; it plays into the character of Nick as one of his major flaws that contributes to the public's growing mistrust of him. I was somewhat familiar with Rosamund Pike, primarily from DIE ANOTHER DAY (I won't hold that against her) and her supporting role in Edgar Wright's THE WORLDS END. She is 100% awesome in GONE GIRL. Amy is an incredibly complex character (for reasons I won't spoil here) and Pike handles it flawlessly. She's sympathetic, intelligent, beautiful, and, when he true nature begins to surface, she's terrifying. As the key characters in this movie, Affleck and Pike and perfectly cast. The supporting cast is equally powerful with Kim Dickens and Carrie Coon standing out. Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry both play against type to outstanding results; Harris as a skeevy, rich former flame of Amy's that hasn't quite let go of the past, and Perry as a hot-shot New York lawyer who's earned a reputation representing husbands with their head on the chopping block. GONE GIRL is a character-driven movie and the cast is at their best to keep the movie, at a whopping 2.5 hours, moving at a break-neck pace. Easy recommend as one of the better movies of 2014, and I can't wait to see Fincher's next.

This is a difficult movie to review. It's based on a comic of the same name. If you liked the comic, then you can forget the movie. The movie shares almost nothing in common with the book. Only the title, The Fraternity, Fox, Wesley and the initial opening of the comic are in tact. Oh, and even though the names are there, the characters are nothing like the comic book counterparts. It's like making "Spiderman" only he wears no costume and doesn't have spider powers. Fox in the comic (AJ's character) looks pretty cool and wears an orange costume similar to Catwoman, but she is African-American with short hair. Now AJ in my opinion is a good actress and I think she's pretty attractive. But she looks nothing like the comic book Fox.So if you read any reviews on IMDb that say this movie sucks because it's not like the source material, then you can believe them. However, for this reviewer, having read the comic, I am glad for that reason. The comic book was about scumbags who rape, murder, kill and swear as if it was a day job. The ending of the book goes so far as to insult the reader and thus serving no purpose in the story other than to say that guys like the people who post on this site, are stupid and meaningless. Now the point of the comic may be to get us off our butts and do something with our lives, and that is a good point to make! I am a writer and make my own movies. I'm sure a lot of you guys are too, and like you all, I try to make what I can, and maybe something will happen in the future. I don't think my day job (just as crappy as the one in the movie) should judge who I am as a person. Now that I got that off my chest, on to the movie.If you accept the movie on it's own terms, you will enjoy it. Bending bullets, jumping off buildings etc, are all fine. I like fake action movies, they are entertaining and serve their purpose. The main complaint about this movie is the how the targets are chosen. But it doesn't really matter because how do you judge who lives and who dies? The fact is, is that Fox believes in their theory of fate choosing and believes in it so much that she makes a powerful decision in the end of the film.If that ending didn't occur, you could throw out the entire film, because the characters didn't buy it, so why should I? But because AJ makes the choice, she proves she does believe her version of "fate", so the audience has to at least understand why she did what she did. Saying things like, I don't believe this could happen, etc etc, is just foolish.It's a movie. Movies are fake, but the should serve one of two purposes. 1 – to entertain us from our crappy jobs, where we cant tell the boss to F-off cause we have to support our families, or 2 – to make us think about our lives, religion, society, history, our place in the universe etc. Wanted entertained me and for a few moments I did think about my crappy job and thought, maybe I could do something better and still support my family.Since Wesley is the protagonist, we identify with him and want him to succeed. Some say the movie is predictable. Well name me one action movie that's not? Now, don't email me telling which movies are not (I own 1900 dvds, original ones, not burned) and I know every action movie out there. But to say it's predictable is to say that I knew Batman would win in the end. Like come on, that's what genre pictures do. The deliver a formula which is sure to please and the better ones (like this movie) throw a bit of thought and excitement in too. Give it a chance.

A clever, good quality monster flick, although it's not for the squeamish (especially if you're afraid of bugs). Inventive creature idea, and you might never look at subway tunnels the same way again. On the other hand, the ending felt like a cop out and I can't believe they let that stupid annoying little kid (the one obsessed with shoes) not end up as roach food. Otherwise, this is a pretty entertaining B-movie.

This movie is a good movie. It is well made, has a great storyline, has good acting and is interesting. It is a novelty, for sure. The problem with this movie is that it was made over 50 years ago and that wears on action movies. On movies like Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, It's a Wonderful Life etc. etc. They are timeless, they don't put a big emphasis on special effects and action scenes. This movie relies on them! And while I am sure that they were state-of-the-art in 1954, the action scenes are boring, by today's standards. I know people will take offense to this, but try showing this movie to anyone who doesn't have prior knowledge of Kirosawa's reputation. They won't like this movie.

Even if this movie seems like a cliché Hollywood story at first, the audience clearly understand that is something more than that.The film describes a famous wrestler well known for his offensive type of fighting in the ring putting a lot of anger and speed.The typical rich star who enjoys a wealthy lifestyle with a wife and a child that love him starts falling apart after an incident of his beloved wife.Then everything changes and the story continues with the downfall of his career and life while he s trying to find the courage to keep up. The movie is very touching and the actors are so well selected that the result is a combination of powerful acting and a nice scenario that entice the viewer into the environment that the director wants to build. Hint:The body transformation of Jake Gyllenhaal is impressive.

The movie is at best 'good', actually its an average story, very linear.The cinematography was commendable, mostly no background music gives it a special feel, bear scene is the creme of the movie and not Leo's acting. Leo was good, but nothing special like Wolf, Shutter, Beach, Django. The Oscar was, in my opinion, obligatory.Getting back to the movie, after watching Bridge of Spies, Spotlight, The Big Short, I was counting on this one to be equally good, after all it was nominated at the same scale. To my disappointment it was quite boring and unimpressive.Maybe if you watch with low expectations, you'll like it.

Released in 2002, "We Were Soldiers" stars Mel Gibson as Col. Hal Moore who leads the first major battle between Americans and the North Vietnamese Army in The Battle of Ia Drang Valley over four days in mid-November, 1965. Sam Elliott costars as the seasoned NCO and Barry Pepper as a bold photographer while Madeleine Stowe appears as the Colonel's wife. Greg Kinnear is also on hand as a helicopter pilot while Keri Russell plays a soldier's wife.The movie is based on the book "We Were Soldiers Once… and Young" by Col. Moore and the aforementioned photographer, Joe Galloway. As such, "We Were Soldiers" is a straight-forward realistic depiction of the battle and the first film depiction where Moore claimed "Hollywood finally got it right." This reminds me of something someone I know who fought in Nam said: All the other films about the war from the late 70s to late 80s didn't strike him as the way it really was, but after seeing "We Were Soldiers" he said, "That's the way it was." Be that as it may, it doesn't make it as good as 1986' "Platoon" or 1979's "Apocalypse Now." The former is so great because the platoon in the story is a microcosm of many platoons and their experiences throughout the war, which might come across as "too much" because the filmmakers only have about 2 hours to tell the story and they have to jam a whole year of experiences into that time frame. Incredibly, "Platoon" fleshes-out no less than a dozen memorable characters with its grunt's-eye view of the conflict while telling a compelling story. By contrast, "We Were Soldiers" only presents about four memorable characters during the battle and, while it's a solid war flick, it simply isn't as compelling.As for "Apocalypse Now," it's useless to compare the two because (1.) the original version of "Apocalypse Now" (as opposed to the horribly flawed "Redux") is a downright cinematic masterpiece; (2.) it's way more than just a war movie; and (3.) its theme is deeper than the conventional and patriotic portrayal of the realistic "We Were Soldiers." If you're not familiar with the theme of "Apocalypse Now," it's basically this: Capt. Willard (Sheen) comes face-to-face with two Colonels during his mission up the river to assassinate the rogue Col. Kurtz. Both of the colonel's names start with 'K,' which is no accident. Col. Kilgore (Duvall) is a romantic who embraces war as a lifestyle and even feeds off it. The fact that he's a romantic can be observed in the air-raid on the village where he literally plays Wagner as a prologue. He feeds off the war to the extent that he "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." War is just another day to him so why not go surfing? Since he lives off of the war there's no way it can kill him or even give him a scratch. Kilgore naturally has the support of the top brass because he's part of the system and plays the game of war. Col. Kurtz (Brando), by contrast, sees through this hypocrisy. He realizes that being in a state of war is humanity gone mad. It's horror itself and therefore must be ended through the quickest means possible at whatever cost. He refuses to play the game of war as he expertly takes out double agents, etc. Of course the brass can't have this so they put out a hit on Kurtz via Willard."We Were Soldiers" instead opts for a simple portrayal of the first major battle of the infamous war and the bravery & horror thereof. The story essentially proposes the question: What would happen if you drop 400 American soldiers into a valley crawling with 4000 soldiers of the NVA? The fighting is presented realistically, brutally and relatively coherently given the chaos of the intense conflict. Col. Moore truly loves his men and Gibson carries the movie with the peripheral help of Elliot and Barry Pepper. On top of this, the movie gives quite a bit of time to North Vietnamese side of the story, which enhances the story.Some people have rolled their eyes at the Morro Bay locations of central coastal, California, but if you look at Galloway's real-life pics of the battle they chose a great stand-in for the grassy valley. I guess people don't realize that Vietnam isn't all conventionally tropical jungle.The film runs a little overlong at 2 hours and 18 minutes and was shot in Morro Bay, Pasadena and Fort Hunter Liggett, California; as well as Fort Benning and Columbus, Georgia.GRADE: B- (6.5/10 Stars)

10 Things JW did right in my opinion:1. It didn't make women seem completely useless. Spielberg intentionally put a strong female character in JP after he made his own wife look completely useless in Temple of Doom. Bryce Dallas Howard helps towards the end (with a nice reference to Dr. Grant's actions in the first film) and isn't as useless as the woman protagonist in Godzilla for example who can't even answer a phone call.2. Having to wait a little while to see a proper Dinosaur in the film, just like JP. Instead the JP theme is effectively used to show the initial areas of the park (just like JP did with the island shots) rather than the awesomeness of a Dinosaur.3. The scale of the park is immense and much better thought out / explored than the first film. There is a hotel, areas where people can walk, merchandise areas, lines where people have to queue for rides. Ride operators who are a bit clueless because usually everything works perfectly, just like in a real park. It was very effective I thought.4. The actors seemed to be in danger during the film. Especially the kids in the gyro-sphere. This was similar to the T Rex attack at night in the original film. Compare this to useless Age of Ultron where it seemed like a play with a bunch of super heroes showing up with their awesome life styles and not having anything really to worry about even when Ironman behaves like an imbecile Dr. Frankenstein and just gets away with it. Mad Max is another great example of a recent movie where actors are in real danger and helps to make you feel more involved and not asleep like Age of Ultron did to me.5. Several dinosaur attack scenes effectively did not have any music. This worked well to create more suspense in the original T Rex attack in JP and was a great contrast when there is a lot of score used.6. The music was excellent and original themes were used well. Compare this to piece of crap Man of Steel resurrection which does not contain John Williams' leid-motif and is just utter crap, considering it is Hans Zimmer, it's really bad. Just drums and 5 piano notes. Not to mention everything else wrong with that utter horrendous film.7. Monster vs Monster fight. Kept to the point and nothing idiotic and long drawn out like in Godzilla (how did THAT director get a Star Wars gig?)8. Superb references to first film when remains of original park were shown, merchandise, tools, cars even to the exact location where Grant, Sattler, Malcolm where first overwhelmed when seeing a brachiosaurus. This time the film leads seeing a dying one because of a real monster the lab cooked up. Nice reverse of plot element I thought.9. Chris Pratt & Bryce Dallas Howard. Good leads and perfect for this film. They don't come with the baggage that some actors have. There was about as much background story to both them as there was to original leads in JP in my opinion. Only critique I have when Claire asks Owen what they should do at end of the film it would have been more fitting to have answered with "we evolve"10. Final roar of T Rex on top of the helicopter pad before movie turns to black instantly. Great ending.

Neil Burger's 'The Illusionist' would immediately fade and its magic would fritter away. The two turn-of-the-century magician tales beg a comparison and indeed they share many similarities like fractured chronology, narration, deceptive illusions, era and music score but they are ultimately two different stories focusing on two wholly different aspects of magic, rivalry between two magicians and a love triangle in the court of Vienna respectively. Although The Prestige also intertwines some romance in its story, the love side of the tapestry firmly belongs in The Illusionist where it fares best. Both films are nothing short of wonderful, The Prestige with a meticulously-composed, brutal pay-off and The Illusionist with a warm centre.In the latter, two young lovers are separated by rank but brought together again fifteen years later on stage as Eisenheim (Edward Norton) is performing magic and requests an audience member to volunteer, which rekindles their illicit romance in a moment of tense chemistry and nostalgic recognition. The problem is Crown Prince Leopold (resident baddie: Rufus Sewell) who plans to wed duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel) and has no desire to lose her to a struggling magician. Through lushly sepia-tinted flashbacks we are given the sweet story of young Sophie and Eisenheim, a ploy which affirms their positions in the protagonist slots and cues the viewers in to root for them. Through tricks and twists Eisenheim engages in an intense battle of wills for his lover, with chief inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) on his tail who scratches his head trying to figure out his next magic act.The Illusionist is a decidedly brighter story with likable characters and clear-cut antagonists, while The Prestige comprised of grey-zoned, selfish lead characters that only momentarily held our sympathy, only to dispel it with their pride, greed and obsessive dedication to the craft. Here the dedication is to love, to Sophie, and the theatrical magic takes a backseat to the love story. It follows then that the setting holds the same bright beauty. The dark 'Prestige' took us to the murky backstreets of London; The Illusionist sweeps across the grand gold-strewn halls of Vienna. The period and costumework are undeniably much better crafted in the latter with a screen that is awash with lyrical colours and luxury, but it may well be that Vienna is simply more of a thankful setting to lose yourself in. There is in this way a tremendous visual sense throughout 'The Illusionist', which Nolan never truly reaches in gloomy, damp The Prestige.For all of its optimistic turns and beautiful outlook, The illusionist does not hold a candle to the majestic Prestige, which towers over the former on a script-level. It is a webby meshwork of magic, an ever-shifting hall of mirrors that kept us guessing throughout, and topped it off with one of the most inventive plot twists in cinematic history. The Illusionist may boast of a clever plot-turn too, but one that is infinitely more conventional and perhaps even predictable to those that pay extra attention. The acting in both films is consistent in the way that the leads are uniformly strong and that Scarlett Johansson is consistently bad in The Prestige. I had never crowned Jessica Biel a particularly capable actress but she performs well in the role of Sophie with a fair European accent. Edward Norton is intense and brooding as the layered Eisenheim with a very European-sounding accent but ultimately he is quite the dullard in the story, which is possibly Giamatti's show as the observing, narrating detective. He may be the only "grey-zoned" character in the film, as I first labelled him an antagonist of sorts.Lastly, I have a few serious qualms with the stage 'magic' that took place in The Illusionist; certainly entertaining parlor tricks and astounding magic are performed – but these tricks are not explained in the film, only alluded to by Eisenheim's vague concession: "Everything you have seen has been an illusion." This is a cheap and lazy cop-out, because if you never bother to explain the magic acts, then you can basically whip out anything, CGI wonders and supernatural creations. So what? The 'mystery' genre is achieved through teasing the audience, not dishing out magical extravaganzas without hinting as to how they have been performed. Christopher Nolan realised this with the script of 'The Prestige' which he and his brother penned, and as a result the mise-en-scene of the film is its key component, letting the audience in on all the secrets... almost.In conclusion it appears as though The Illusionist and The Prestige are rather different films after all. The former is smaller-scaled, lower-budgeted, sweeter and more forgettable and in all fairness, it is only its fantastic, epic score by Philip Glass that reaffirms its home on the big screen. The Prestige, by contrast, is utterly unforgettable and I am still scratching my head in awe at its meticulously-composed mystery even though I was probably equally entertained while watching the two magician stories.7 out of 10 for The Illusionist. 9 out of 10 for The Prestige

Despite the slaggings I still love this movie for one reason ......... it is fun to watch. Forget the plot, effects etc. Hoskins, Leguizamo and Hopper are tremendous to watch in a movie where they all obviously said "screw my career I'm doing this".Most complaints surround the inaccuracy of the storyline and characters with the video game version. Since the Mario Bros. video game plots were very simple a film maker would have to flesh them out in order to have a feature film produced.The "de evolved" dinosaur world is very atmospheric and the overall visual tone of the film is great.Certainly not a "classic" or award worthy but rent it, watch it and tell me you don't enjoy it.

Why this adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice' fails in its attempt to accurately portray Jane Austen's beloved novel.The most famous of Jane Austen's works, 'Pride and Prejudice,' was first published in 1813 and still remains a favorite among many with a love for good literature and well written romance. Ever since movies become popular, companies have tried to produce films that bring Austen's, (and other famous authors') books to life. We enjoy seeing character burst forth from black and white pages into vivid, realistic people thanks to actors and actresses that portray them. Yet, while viewing Focus Feature's 2005 adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice," I have come to the conclusion that were Jane Austen alive today, she -and other respectable women of the 19th century- would be horrified at the atrocious misrepresentation of Austen's characters.The most obvious change is that of the book's heroine, Elizabeth "Lizzie" Bennet. The first difference that I noticed was her lack of respect for authority. This is first apparent after her refusal of Mr. Collins, when she angrily tells her parents, "I won't marry him, you cannot make me!" and runs out of the house. Also, in the conversation that takes place between Elizabeth and Colonel Fitzwilliam during a Sunday morning sermon, and after wards, when her mother asks about Lady Catherine de Bourge, Elizabeth screams, "For once in you're life, leave me alone!" Jane Austen never allows Elizabeth to display such a lack of respect and self-control in the novel. The movie also fails to represent Lizzie's complete trust and affection for her sister, Jane. She denies even hearing of Mr. Bingley during her stay with the newlywed Collins, and does not tell Jane of Darcy's proposal. In Austen's book, the two sisters always confided in each other.The changes made in Mr. Darcy's character are equally disturbing. He appears so emotionless and shows almost no change in expression when he speaks that one wonders if he feels anything at all. Jane Austen's Darcy was undoubtedly stern and proud, but the dull manner in which Matthew McFayden expresses -or fails to express- himself is very tiresome, indeed. Furthermore, in Austen's novel Mrs. Bennet is presented as motherly, and often loud and embarrassing; making inappropriate remarks at all the wrong times. In the movie, she goes beyond humiliating and well into vulgar as she dangles her legs off a table she's sitting on during the ball, and sloshes her dessert on an unsuspecting young man. The whole film is filled with frustrating errors. You're extremely fortunate if you can determine which girl is Lydia and which is Kitty before the dreadful elopement with Mr. Wickham. Everyone listens to conversations behind doors and constantly talk over one another. Mr. Bennet always appears to be half drunk, Lizzie giggles after almost every sentence no matter the gravity of the situation which greatly downplays the drama, Lady Catherine arrives at the Bennet's to admonish Elizabeth in the middle of the night when all civil folk are asleep, and Kitty and Lydia wear pig-tails to a ball. The dialogue is so rushed that it leaves you with a feeling of something missing. If you can even catch what the characters said in the first place. If the movie makers were so short on time, they should have foregone the nauseating scene with Mr. Darcy's collection of naked statues which was a completely unnecessary addition. Even in the wardrobe department, the movie went wrong. Mr. Darcy proposes for the second and last time to Elizabeth while they are both in their bed clothes. An idea which would have been scandalous to anyone living in Jane Austen's time period. Caroline Bingley is not even properly dressed at the Netherfield ball. She is shown in a plain, sleeveless gown with very thin straps in a time when lace was all the rage and long sleeves the newest fashion in London. Miss Bingley with her love of pomp and display of social status would never have worm a gown such as the one she wears in the movie. In the film, Caroline Bingley was about 200 years ahead of herself in fashion. I could continue to describe the atrocities of the movie until there was enough to fill a book, but I will end my comparison by saying, that Focus Features does no credit to Jane Austen's wonderful romance in their ridiculous movie.

After so many years, Jaws is probably on my list as one of my five favorite films of all time. I never get tired of watching this movie. It's just got one of those feelings that Hollywood will never, ever be able to reproduce. I doubt there is anything I could say about this movie that would do it justice and that others haven't already said better than I, so I'll just mention a few of the things that make me keep on coming back for more.So many to chose from... well, there is the shark, of coarse. Brilliant move by Spielberg in not showing it until the third act. In fact, the scenes where you don't see him are scarier, like the guy that gets knocked off his boat in the pond, where we get our first glimpse of the shark gliding under the water towards him and pulling him under. Frightening. The cast, Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw are incredible. Shaw totally steals every scene he's in. This has to be one of the most quoted films in pop culture with lines like, "We're gonna need a bigger boat", "This was no boating accident! It wasn't any propeller, it wasn't any coral reef and it wasn't Jack the Ripper. It was a shark", "Uh, I think it's clear that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass!", and just about everything Robert Shaw says. Every bit of praise this movie has received it has earned.I happened upon the latest release of the film recently. The 25th anniversary edition, complete with a "making of", deleted scenes and outtakes. Definitely money well spent, even if you already own it, run out and buy this on video or DVD. What makes it worth it? Well, the scene with Quint going to the music shop to buy piano wire is worth the price of admission alone, I laughed so hard! The "making of" feature was filled with juicy facts, including Spielberg setting the record straight on who actually wrote the famous (and brilliant) U.S.S. Indianapolis speech delivered by Shaw, a scene that almost every writer working in Hollywood at that time has taken credit for at one time or another. And with good reason, it's a memorable one. I loved every minute of it. This movie is a classic no matter how you cut it.Don't go in the water!!

Soderbergh's second film of 2012, and his second dud. Well, this one was a box office hit, anyway, maybe his biggest in a long while. But that's mostly because it features Channing Tatum stripping. That's about all it has to offer, though. The stripping sequences are the only times the film comes alive. The plot otherwise is a total bore. Tatum again proves that he's more than a pretty body. I doubt he'll ever be an Oscar winner, but he's got some talent. Matthew McConaughey had such a winning streak this year, and he gives another fine performance here. I don't think it's his best of the year - that would be Killer Joe - but it's good. Alex Pettyfer, who plays the young stripper whom Tatum brings into the club, is totally bland. Cody Horn, who plays his sister and Tatum's love interest, is quite a looker and seems to be talented. Look out for her in the future. Olivia Munn also co-stars and continues to be a snooze.

Actually I think watching paint dry might actually be more entertaining. I had high hopes for this film. Adam Driver, Adam Driver. How could it be bad with Adam Driver? But oh it was. Paterson is a bus driver that writes poetry. IMHO bad poetry. "Our favorite brand of matches is Ohio Blue Tip, our previous favorite was diamond brand, blah - blah - blah." They lost me after repeating the same poem multiple times. I only lasted twenty minutes into the film, maybe it gets better, but I don't care because those twenty minutes were excruciating and painfully boring. Skip It!

Lynch really takes the to the road. He knows it all the way as deep as knowing goes.A sound scape of equal value. An all pervading medium of light, of color, of sound that fuse and separate and engulf whole carloads of matter, rudimentary and deadly.

I loved this film, the story line was brilliant, it kept you on the edge of your seat the whole entire time, and the end was a genuine surprise. I thought that the cinematography was so well done, the use of lighting and camera angles had this awesome effect that drew you in and set the tone for every scene. The acting was marvelous too, Dunaway and Nicholson were brilliant together and had an edgy feel that kept a mysterious and hidden evil to both of them that kept the viewer questioning at all times. They also had awesome chemistry that made them so convincing together! Over all I loved this film and would recommend it!

Not being a fan of the universe that Rowling created and not much of a fan of "Harry Potter" as such, then I had very little interest in watching "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" actually, but I had the chance and went to watch it with my wife.And while she found it to be a good movie and enjoyed it, then I was in the opposite side. I didn't enjoy "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" one bit.Sure this movie was amazingly great and astounding to look at visually. And believe you me that there was not spared on the special effects and the visuals in this movie. The CGI effects in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" was off the charts. And that alone is almost enough to make it worthwhile to watch the movie, almost...What deterred me was how the was the amazingly boring storyline. It took forever for nothing to happen, and that was a massive anchor around the movie, dragging it down to the point where it became unbearable to witness.It seemed like the entire movie was just a stream of random scenes put together, in no particular order, for making a complete movie. There was a disturbing lack of a red thread throughout the course of this movie.As for the acting, well they surely had managed to get some great names and talents along for the ride, but the pick for the lead role was a bit beyond my comprehension, because Eddie Redmayne seemed to be as lost in the story as the rest of the audience. He stuck out like a sore thumb among the likes of Colin Farrell and Dan Fogler.I walked out on the movie shortly after 50 minutes into the movie, when the main character started to do a mating dance. That was just the pinnacle of ridiculousness and I tossed the towel in the ring at that point. It was just too much.I am sure that there definitely is a massive fan flock for this movie, given the success of the "Harry Potter" movies (and books), however it was just a swing and a miss for my part.

I just love the film Natural Born Killers. I reckon Oliver Stones managed to thrill me once again with his work as he is unafraid to expose what some might say "explicit images". I feel he does this with reason behind his work and truly make you think by the end of the film. The casting is brilliant in my opinion as the actors and actress's, i feel, really capture the events and feelings in the film.I decided to do my film essay on this film as it contain so much detail and things for me to speak about in the essay.Many people i have spoken to about this film don't like it and say it's just mindless violence. I think this is rubbish and they haven't obviously gained the full perspective of what the film is trying to present and obviously don't understand Satire. I have no problem with people disliking to film but i dislike it when people comment on the film as just being mindless violence and not giving the film it's chance to show it's potential. A lot of the film is about love and the struggle of relationships which i'm sure many can relate to. I believe Quentin Tarantino managed once again to create a fantastic story.

Looking forward to a "back to the roots" movie after the disaster that "The Wolverine" was, the emotional curve watching this latest installment of the franchise went from anticipation to shock to utter boredom.A story-line as simplistic as could be is tried to be made more interesting by a lot of gory elements - decapitations, severed limbs and exploding body parts to name just a few. This is NOT a movie to watch with your kid or teenager. Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and a great Dafne Keen do their best to keep the viewers interested but in the end can't hide the shortcomings in editing and storytelling of this movie. As much as I love the X-man series, this is not the send-off I would have wished Hugh Jackman to get. He can do and deserved so much more. Spare yourself the time (close to 3 hrs) and money for a cinema visit and rather wait for a streaming if you have to watch it.

To see or not to see? That is the question isn't it? Although simplistic at times, I do recommend everyone to see " The 10 Things I Hate About You." The movie is yet another one of those adolescent modern stories that are based on old shakespearean plays. The difference with this one is that it does work. Why? I will give well what about 10 reasons for you: 1) Humorous screenplay 2) Well-ensembled acting 3) Julia Stiles 4) Adequate duration time 5) Julia Stiles 6) Larry Miller's obsessive parental performance 7) Julia Stiles 8) Nifty soundtrack 9) Julia Stiles 10) Feel good movieDid i forget to say Julia Stiles? Ms. Stiles demonstrates that she does have a promising future in the acting business. It might not be a perfect 10, but " The 10 Things I Hate About You" gets high marks. **** Good

It's difficult to determine what to think about this movie when seeing it for the first time. The acting by Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman was as good as their particular roles could've offered. Ben Whishaw was very good. I was actually beginning to wonder whether or not this role left him with any permanent nasal damage from all the sniffing that he had to do. =) The movie was visually very pleasing and very sensual/provocative.However, despite claims that his movie was much like the book without all the violence, it proved to be disturbing just the same. And I'm left in a state of confusion when people make bold remarks that this movie wasn't violent. I am certain that my mother couldn't sit through this movie because of the disturbing imagery and violent acts that take place. However, if you read my other reviews, you'll already know that I'm pretty desensitized, so these things shouldn't bother me.What bothered me most about this movie was how fantastical and sensational they made the main character appear towards the end when I already had feelings of disgust from all the violent acts that he committed in order to make this most aphrodisiacal of perfumes ever invented. I saw him more as the anti-Christ and I wanted him to be gunned down by a S.W.A.T. team armed with air-compressed ArmaLite semi-automatics pumping round after round at him and have his perfume confiscated, and of course they would all have to be wearing gas masks when they did this because otherwise this movie would escalate into another "My Own Private Idaho" or "Brokeback Mountain" (with way more cowboys) and I really wouldn't want to see that. I know I'm supposed to be captivated by this film, but it's really hard to when I haven't been shown any likable qualities about this character, except for his passion to preserve scent, which could be considered an admirable quality by any artist who is 100% passionate (not to mention professional) about his work.Also, I'd like to comment on the fact that this movie was really long, yet not nearly complex enough to warrant the length.An interesting fact about this movie is that the music, which I thought was very well written, was written by none other than the director, who also directed Run, Lola, Run.If I could give this movie six and a half stars, I would. But since I'm restricted between giving it six and seven stars, I'll have to give it a six.

In contrast to Driven, The Fast and the Furious actually hit the mark it was aiming for. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it actually surpassed my expectations. I'm not going to go overboard here and suggest that it is a masterpiece of cinema. However, it is certainly a cut above the average Hollywood movie. Firstly, its theme is one of inherent interest. There is something really quite engaging about the life of a street racer: modifying a run-of-the-mill Japanese compact car into a 500bhp vehicle that can do a quarter-mile in 10 seconds and gathering in the middle of the night with 100 like-minded racers to wager thousands of dollars on quarter-mile drag races.The film had great energy and was just angry enough to give it attitude, but not too angry as to be obnoxious. The race and chase sequences were excellent; full of high speed action and cool camera angles. Unfortunately, there were a couple of crashes that people walked away from which, in real life, would have seriously injured those involved. But apart from the odd departure from real-life, the driving seemed actually pretty accurate.The story and characters were also better than I expected. There were some tough choices for the hero, Brian (played by the blue-eyed Paul Walker), and you actually felt like you got to know the main players a bit. Vin Diesel, who plays opposite Walker as the charismatic, if harsh, street racing legend Dominic, has an on-screen presence similar to Ving Rhames. In fact, it is Diesel who forms the backbone of the film, both within the context of the story and with his performance.In addition to the great races and chases, there are some nice scenesinvolving interaction of the characters. In particular, a moment towards the end, when Brian reveals his true identity to Dominic, generates a great deal of tension.As with many films of this nature, it would be easy to pick it apart. Dissecting the inconsistencies in the story and illogical decisions of the characters would, however, just be a futile engagement. This film is more about the experience than the meaning... more about the journey than the destination.

The best movie created in human history!!!. A movie everybody should watch it. I can "imagine" the next one (inside out 2) will be when she fall in love, and no.3 will be when she marry and become parent. I'm pretty sure these will be happened in the next versions! All we need is "joy", Happiness and "love". We will see them on the next versions of this movie, because I can see them INSIDE myself.If me and my wife we could watch this movie 4 years ago, then we would not divorced now! I cried a lot when I watching this movie and I wished this movie could create on 2011 rather than 2015.By the way, it's a really great movie and it deserves to be on the top 250 movies all the time. for me, it's the best movie I ever have seen in my life.

I don't usually do movie reviews, but after watching Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight", I feel compelled to issue a warning. I found this to be a terrible movie on so many levels!!! Where to start? The (thin) plot is tedious much of the time and the characters woefully unredeemable. I would issue a special 'Hang Your Head in Shame' award for deliberately revolting scenes; so many in fact, that they overtake most of the film. In typical Tarantino style, this film is accompanied by extreme violence and plenty of blood and gore. The acting by a select cast was the only decent thing about it. Don't be swayed by the idiotic crop of sadistic QT cult followers who will give it rave reviews for blood lust alone. This same story could have been told differently and been much more deserving of artistic merit. I would guess that Quentin (of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill) is merely trying to cash in on his vintage fame. Don't waste your popcorn on this one folks, I came dangerously close to losing mine!

Probably my least favorite Pixar film. When I go to see a kid's movie, especially a Pixar one at that, I come in foremost expecting a fair amount of comedy, but with excellent character development and whole hearted emotion. No to mention a good score is a must. This film just tried too hard to be an actual action flick. It seemed to forget that it is, after all, a family movie. Not for the fact that it was too gruesome or something, come on, its Disney but where were the laughs? For the longest time in this drawn out film I was bored with it all. If I want to see a superhero I will actually go see one, not this! Also, I was rather surprised sometimes at the not-so-subtle sensuality at times.The plot, something Pixar usually stands out for amongst the wannabes, falls incredibly short. Syndrome killed off hundreds of heroes, to perfect his little doomsday droid so he could build himself a utopia of superheroes like himself. Eh, decent at best, but the main problem was the cast, aside Mr. incredible. Everyone else aside him, and I guess Syndrome, were left completely undeveloped. Unlike in "Toy Story", "Bug's Life" and "Finding Nemo", where you left the theater with a sense of awe, wonder and feel-goodness, I just left this one with "blah".In the words of "Finding Nemo": "What a pity."

I love Steven Spielberg's movies but I truly wanted to hate this one.The happenings at the Munich Olympics, 34 years later, are still fresh in my mind, and my feelings of that day, that someone needs to get even with Black September and its supporters is still present. Therefore, I wasn't ready to accept a large part of Spielberg's premise---that there was a great personal toll on the Israelies who were commissioned to carry out targeted killings of those who actually planned and/or carried out the terrorist plot.With mixed emotions I have to say that this is an outstanding movie pointing out the complexities of how a free Western society reacts to the actions of society's lowest common denominator--those who would rather destroy a perceived enemy than attempt to work with them as partners. While there are many fine technical aspects of Munich--the precision needed to hunt down and destroy the terrorists--what is most memorable is the final questioning by the Israelis of the implications of what they are doing. And, it is important to note, Israel has pretty much gone out of the targeted assassination business.

M'Kay. We're back again, this time for even better fight scenes, better characters (and character development for that matter), and much better animation. The music was endearing, and matched the moods perfectly. The final song (The Call, by Regina Spektor) brought me to tears. One of many new characters, Prince Caspian (played by Ben Barnes) fit in with the other four children as if they'd always been together, as did most secondary characters. One that comes to mind is Reepicheep the mouse, voiced by Eddie Izzard, who stole the show with his antics. In two days, I've seen the movie twice, and will definitely go see it again.

I remember this hitting home video about six months after its whirlwind run in theaters. $100 million bucks, the return of Gere, the juggernaut of Roberts. And not even halfway into the film I had a surprising reaction....people fell in love with this? Such a slight, unaffecting little story involving a "hooker with a heart of gold!" (as she was dubbed in the trailers) and a near-comatose businessman who seemed like he was on quaaludes. It's a pretty safe bet that the financial returns of this film were driven by young girls yearning for that White Knight and couples choosing a movie as a first date. Guys were probably bored crapless, and women swooned at Gere's money-spraying nice guy.But even with that a major component, the film's vignettes are not that spectacular. Polo match, opera night, fancy restaurant dinner. Not exactly jets to Paris and moved into a mansion (a majority of the film takes place in a hotel room!). I guess the gals had reason to coo over Roberts' wardrobe fiesta, with the various dress-up sessions and flashy gowns she parades around in. And for the guys? Well, there is that polo match.Not to say the film is totally worthless. Roberts obviously conveys a charm that appealed to both sexes, she wouldn't have become a superstar without it. Gere is a decent enough guy, so subdued that he doesn't pose any sort of threat. And the age difference (19 years!!) shockingly has no hampering effect on their chemistry together. Others supporting them such as Elizondo and Larry Miller's infamous suck-up salesman provide a few grins.But the "comedy" side of the script is so light and harmless ("I nearly peed my pants"; mishandling of shellfish) you're nearly lulled into oblivion by the excessive breezniness of the story. Add on some cutesy "Bwahahaa!" bursts of laughter from Roberts childlike character, and a forced bad-guy climax involving Alexander's lecherous lawyer, and the cookie-cutter should be nice and broken in.

I don't know what it is about this movie. I don't particularly like Andie McDowell - and yet she also shows-up in one of my other favorites, Four weddings and a funeral.Anyway, I have seen this movie, probably more times than any other movie and it STILL makes me laugh and I STILL smile at all the romantic bits and the sad bits.Simply outstanding. A must-see, over and over and over...

All I can say is that I expected more! The hype for this really made me believe that Days of Future Past was going to top the last film: First Class. I found it to be average. How is this listed under IMDb's Top 250. The plot = relatively average. On the bright side the few action scenes( excluding those from the "future") were pretty good, but nothing amazing.I really enjoyed X Men: First Class, but this one made me lose faith in Summer Blockbusters again. It's not a bad film at all, the performances were good and the dialogue, not bad, but this movie suffers from being too ordinary and with movies like the Avengers on such an epic scale the Xmen franchise needs to up its game!

Lots of good stuff to enthuse over: effects, costumes, the cigarettes with the extra-long filters, and best of all, the futuristic traffic network. The movie looks fantastic. Bruce Willis as the poorly dressed Joe-who-saves-the-world, okay, cool...Yet, the story as a whole didn't really work for me. I did find it hard to swallow the concept that the "good" aliens, who can kill you with a glance, have what is frankly a flimsy spaceship. The two Gamorrean Guards in the Battlestar Galactica Vipers managed to destroy that without much hassle. That the Gamorrean Guards turn out to be pretty fragile themselves is another plot hole that undermined my enjoyment.Still, if you like high-concept, go right ahead and disable your brain for a couple of hours and enjoy. But in the end it joins the legion of similar visually brilliant movies that are ultimately forgettable. For me, anyway.;) 6/10

I was so pleased by this production of the Phantom. I've seen the show on Broadway twice and was so excited when I heard they were making the movie. I was afraid that the movie might not live up to the show, but I think it was fabulous! I read reviews about how weak the Phantom's voice is in the movie, and having seen Michael Crawford perform Phantom, I was afraid I'd be disappointed. NOT! This Phantom really lets his emotions out when he sings. The whole appearance of the movie is stunning -- the grand opera sets, the gorgeous costumes, and of course the Phantom's lair. Go see this movie and surround yourself with the music of the night.

Is this movie entertaining? Absolutely. The color-palette is gorgeous. The action is easy to follow. The story is as well. It deepens our understanding of the characters that we met in the first movie. And it's funny. In fact, from the beginning of the movie, we're fed the information that this film is going for fun, laughs and action. It is no surprise, therefore, that that's all we get. A 137 minute (and you better stay for all 137 credits and all, you don't want to miss any of the 5 post credit scenes) romp through 700 galaxies (or at least a few of them) to get to know the meaning of who your family really is.What was a surprise was that this movie pushed significantly harder against the PG-13 rating than most of the other films. I found some of the violence against bad-guys a little harsh. Additionally, I thought the references to sex-bots, fornication on a universe scale, and the references to a god's (little "g") manhood a little out of place, unnecessary even to the overall plot of the film. It seemed the deliberate marketing of Baby-Groot and the "Disney-fication" of the MCU would entice 12, 10, perhaps even 8 year old to the seats. I didn't find these to be easily pushed aside for those ages in post-movie discussions. In addition, I thought the reach for sentimentality at the conclusion of the movie, while effective in many ways, lost its edge for me in light of the cantankerous and callous treatment of the above issues by the script and characters within.I will recommend the film. But I'm a bit disappointed it didn't effectively reach a higher bar standing on the shoulders of its predecessor. It should have in my opinion. And I'm afraid it won't hold up as well to repeat viewings. It's in the top third of the MCU of movies with CA: Winter Soldier, CA: Civil War, Iron Man, and the first GotG. I was kinda hoping it would've been in the top 3.

I greatly enjoyed the first Fast and The Furious movie; it was about the illegals and illegal drag racing, which us kids were involved in back in 2001. It was about the hooked up cars and modifications. Since Fast and Furious became a franchise, I've been disinterested in seeing any its sequels; they just lack substance, and a real story to get into. Fast and Furious 7 had too many impossible scenes, almost a comic style reality where anything is possible. Flying cars? No problem, it was just horrible. I wanted to leave, I saw a few people leaving the theater, at one point I closed my eyes to sleep.Honestly I don't even know what the movie was about, other than that 80% of the time, was shooting, things blowing up, racing, crashing, and so on. It just sucked!

I selected this DVD because Emily and Scarlett were in it. I didn't realize until I got it home that it was by Woody Allen. As far as I am concerned his movies are usually weird if not awful. All the characters usually sound like him. I did like Deconstructing Harry and one other of his comedy movies. Anyway, I was surprised at how well the screenplay was. The story certainly gives you plenty to think about. I was literally feeling sick to my stomach when Chris was caught up in all that trouble and the suspense was killing me. I didn't really want him to get away with what he was doing but my instinct felt for him as he was trying to beat the odds and commit the perfect crime. I am glad that I knew it was Woody Allen's story, or I would have been really creeped-out. I think knowing the history of Woody Allen (his personal life that we DO know) and knowing the rest of his works, helps us deal with this distressing movie. First of all it seemed to be a British movie (prob, filmed in NY as I have seen those sets on TV shows, say Sex and the City or whatever) But not typically an American movie. So congrats to Allen being able to do that. And it's shocking to Americans to see a "bad guy" get away with murder. We are used to the bad guy getting caught no matter what; not so in foreign movies which rarely explain anything but leave it to the viewer to decide what is really happening. Congrats to Allen again for that, excellent! I have a feeling that the character Chris was acting out some of Allen's hidden or inner rage when acting on his driven-ness so to speak and blowing his lover (and his own unborn baby) away with a shotgun. I am assuming that Allen has felt like doing that on occasion given his history with women and children. Any other director and I wouldn't have understood it as well. Anyway, the story was also a comment on the typical wishy-washy Englishmen who are so stuck in societal demands that they have to play along and deny their real selves. An American would never do that. (A crazy American would only kill someone like that as a result of psychosis not as a thought-out solution, at least in movies.) This guy killed Nola for the sake of sticking to the British upper class traditions, she was a fly in the ointment and had to be gotten rid of, of course, like any other unpleasantness wealthy people deal with. Not only did he sell his soul for money and to continue with his upper class lifestyle, he saw it as the only "right thing" to do. Also, it was interesting that his habit of hitting the tennis ball right on the net so it falls back to you--making your LOSE, this time having the ring fall onto the ground instead of into the river--helped him WIN (or get away with murder--unless you see it that he lost again in having to live with his sins.) I can see a character such as he portrayed going right on with life, telling himself "OH WELL, water under the bridge", he did say collateral damage and he would force himself to believe that for the sake of his own sanity. And he would not look back or regret it after awhile of justifying it. Maybe he'd become a bit of a drunk on weekends and holidays but expected to do so and tolerated. He would continue participating in the typical stuffy English lifestyle as if there was nothing else he could do. His wife was obviously in charge of his life by then and he would just go along with it. I also thought, like some comments I read, that he could go on with this lifestyle and having blonds on the side would be perfectly acceptable later on down the line.

When I heard that they were working on a CGI remake of Kong, I was excited. After seeing the "man in the ape suit" version of the Kong in the '80s, I thought there will be no bounds put on the realism of Kong if done in CGI. Then I saw that it is being made by director Peter Jackson, and I had a sinking feeling. Wasn't this the guy who did the Lord of the Rings trilogy ? I remember how disappointed when I went to to see the first Lord of the Rings. How soul-less it was in the acting department, and lacked any climax to speak of (Having cliff hanger scenes made of CGI doesn't automatically make it a climax). I thought of the saying "First time shame on you. Second time shame on me." so I decided not to go and see the movie at the theater and wait for the DVD rentals to come out. After seeing the DVD (which I rented for a $1.50), I'm glad I stayed home.I think Peter Jackson is like Carl Denham in this story. Someone who gets on to a sensationalism topic to excite the public, but has no talent or principle about the artistry of film making. The movie was schizoid from start to end. There's no integration between the characters, the actors who portrays the characters, cinematography, and the plot. Acting was shallow, with actors who I thought really didn't fit the role, depicting characters that I could care less about, and this filled the first hour of the movie. After the Kong shows up, many scenes which were inserted above and beyond the original Kong's script made me think "Why did they have to put this scene in there ?". It's like story of Van Helsing suddenly coming into a Kong movie with lots of weired creatures doing disgusting things to the actors. Cinematography was totally off. First part looked like it was a TV show. Then it gets suddenly dark when the ship approaches the Skull island, then it became like a regular movie, then it went back to being a TV when the crew gets back to New York. Plot about the Skull island natives were totally ridiculous. How can people live in such savagery be so industrious to build such great walls and carvings ? If they had that much will, and industriousness, they would be much more civilized.I think everything they changed about the original movie didn't work out, and here are some examples: 1. I think they made a mistake of making Kong into a giant mountain gorilla in this movie. It's like trying to depict Godzilla as an accurate giant iguana. Kong is Kong, and other Kong movies with person in ape suit made the same mistake of trying to make Kong into a believable giant gorilla. If you look at the original RKO Kong, you'll see how well it is designed. It's a gorilla of sorts, but it is its own original character. It has a looks way cool all on its own.2. The Skull island lacked believability. It just looked like a giant video game.3. Three T-Rex against Kong. I heard that this scene is great, and I hoped that I'd see a very Kong like action here. But it was like three T-Rex just trying to eat Ann, and the battle was like the Hulk against the three mutant dogs. The cut from one scene to another took away some of the build up with the face off that the original Kong had with one T-Rex.4. Kong ends up in New York in the winter. What's wrong with that ? If you know how cold winter in New York is like, you'll understand how ridiculous way Ann is clothed. She's in a slip dress with little high heels on. And she climbs to the top of the Empire State building in the early morning and don't shiver or much less freeze to death ? This is totally idiotic, but this movie is filled with lack of thoughts of this type. As someone mentioned, this movie stretches believability beyond our ability to believe. After a while, you get put off by the sheer ridiculousness.5. Woman climbing the Empire State building, risking her life to save Kong on a little slip on high heels ? Uh, I have no words.My final comment is director Peter Jackson has no talent. He's just good at picking topics with sensational publicity value, and making a movie out of it. I'll be on guard when I see his name on a movie as I have for this movie so that I won't be sorry that I spent $10 and two (or three in this case) hours of my time watching the movie (as many people seemed to have found out after seeing this movie).

Sorry to all those Johnny Depp fans out there but I went into this film with a lot of expectations and was concerned greatly whether he could carry off the role of Willy Wonka. I have never been a fan of his however I was very much impressed. What a show it was! He did an interview with one of our late shows here (Equivelant in USA to your David Letterman etc.) over satellite and said that as soon as he got the part to the movie he stopped watching the original with his kids. He wanted a fresh new approach to the character of Willy Wonka, and that, he DID! He came off eccentric and clever. I did feel however some of the dialogue that was used from the original film was not well brought across to the new screen. It was satisfactory however still entertaining and humorous. I am like many of the fans out of there of the original film. Nothing will beat the original. I also believe this film is more true to the original book. Not ever reading the book I cannot comment on this.The sets were colourful to be expected with some new scenes. However those expecting to see Charlie and his Grandfather floating to the ceiling in the bubble scene will be disappointed. In this movie, Charlie is always the good boy placing his family first.What can i say about this film. Well i loved it. Since i am now father to a 5 year old son, I have watched the original over and over again now as an adult. It brings me back being a child again. I escape in the magic of it all. The new film was no exception to the rule. I know remakes have been very fashionable in the last 5-10 years and original ideas are becoming more rare every day, this is one remake you WILL want to go and see.Johnny, you did well. I loved the casting of the old Grandfather. Anyone remember Waking Ned Divine??? I believe it was the same guy.Go see it. Whether you are a parent or not or with children or not you will enjoy it. A MUST SEE!!!

Suppose you're with a girlfriend and she wants to take you to the movies. What film do you imagine she'd take you to? A romantic comedy perhaps but certainly the last thing on my mind was "Saw". Billed as the scariest thing since "Ring" (a film that I still will not watch again), I had my doubts about this especially as "Ring" seems to be the benchmark for Hollywood horror these days, a bit like every British comedy released was the new "Four Weddings And A Funeral". I'm happy to say that my cynicism was wide of the mark but don't expect this to be an easy film to watch.The story starts with two men waking up in a locked room. Both are chained to pipework and have nothing but a dead body, a walkman, a gun and instructions for company. The first man, photographer Adam (Whannel, who also wrote the screenplay) is told that he must prepare to die. The second man, Dr Gordon (Elwes), is told that he has a few hours in which to kill Adam or he himself will die. As the two men struggle to deal with the predicament, the story as to how and why these men are in this situation is gradually revealed."Saw" is a very extreme picture. By that, I mean that credibility and violence are taken as far as they can go. Each death is more overblown than the last one (making someone crawl through a maze of razorwire, drill bits inserted into the temples, having your mouth forced open "like a beartrap in reverse") and even the situation is absurdly illogical. It struck me that the writers had an extremely sick premise but weren't 100% sure what to do with it. As the time limits runs down and the action picks up, interesting and original sequences of shots are presented. For example, a car chase between the chief suspect and the cop on the case (Danny Glover) is shown as merely a rapid sequence of shots showing just the drivers and the front of the vehicle - no road or traffic is displayed. Overly stylish, perhaps, but not what you'd normally expect from a car chase.Acting seems a little stifled for whatever reason, possibly allowing the story to tell itself. I'm thinking that this was the wrong way to do this kind of picture - I'd have allowed the characters room to breathe as we find out more about them, this is a character piece after all. It reminded me a lot of "Se7en" and I suspect that the film-makers will take that as a compliment. This is not an easy film to watch as you squirm and scream at the right moments. At least, my girl screamed. She accused me of being static throughout the picture, though I will confess to jumping a little at one or two scenes. Truth is, "Saw" isn't really a "jumpy" kind of horror film. Like "Ring", it plays with your mind and disturbs rather than frightens. Like all good horror, it is about psychology and "Saw" uses this very well, messing your mind up as opposed to trying to soil your underwear.Despite "Saw" being a great piece of horror and an impressive debut for Whannel (can't wait to see what he comes up with next), I'm not sure that I can totally recommend it. Those who enjoy their horror films being over-the-top and down-right sick will get a big kick out of this. For casual horrors fans such as myself, "Saw" will either fit the bill or disgust you completely. And if you rated "The Horse Whisperer" as one of your favourite films then do not see this. You will not like it. "Saw" is a great horror film and deserves to do well but is really only for those fans of the genre.

Yes, it IS awful! The books are good, but this movie is a travesty of epic proportions! 4 people in front of me stood up and walked out of the movie. It was that bad. Yes, 50 minutes of wedding...very schlocky accompanied by sappy music. I actually timed the movie with a stop watch I was so bored. There is about 20 minutes of action and the rest is Bella pregnant and dying. The end. No, seriously. One of the worst movies I have ever seen. If it didn't have such a big budget and hype it would rank with one of the worst horror movies out there. The movie is plain stupid and cheesy and by far the worst of the series. The first two movies were nowhere near this awful!

Into the Wild is one of the greatest films I have seen. The beautiful scenery, accurate details, excellent acting, combined with Eddie Vedder's contributions to the soundtrack only added to the powerful message of the movie. The best part of the movie was how closely it paralleled the book. Krakauer's novel was so powerful and beautifully written, one would expect a movie based on the same story to fall short of it's written counterpart. Sean Penn failed to disappoint, and Emile Hirsch only contributed to the portrayal of Chris due to the fact that the two could be related they look so similar. One of my favorite parts of the movie was the scene in which Chris is having a conversation with Ron Franz and declares a valuable message: that "You are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships. God's place is all around us, it is in everything and in anything we can experience. People just need to change the way they look at things." This message was just as powerful in the book, and in this scene the brilliance of Sean Penn shone through. The relationships Chris built in the movie were wonderful in the fact that he seemed to distance himself from everyone, yet at the same time had an intense personal bond with people that were fundamentally strangers. My favorite encounter Chris had was meeting Ron Franz, and the lessons the two taught each other were beautiful and inspiring.There are very, very few things I disliked about the film. One of the fundamentals of the book was the fact that seclusion such as the isolation Chris found in Alaska ultimately led to an examination of one's own soul, rather than a simple minded hatred of society. The book compares Chris to a modern Thoreau, whose journey into the wild led to not only a closeness to nature at its fullest, but a closeness to oneself and an examination of the soul. This did not come across clearly in the film, the focus was more on the adventure Chris found along the way. Although this was not a huge mistake to make, it would have been nice to see more of Chris' journals and personal ideals displayed at some point during the movie.Though it is difficult to compare Into the Wild to another film, the strong personal ideals and adoration of the wilderness vaguely reminded me of The River Wild. Though the plots of these movies are completely different, the grandeur of the wilderness is reflected in both. Into the Wild shows a man discovering himself, while The River Wild portrays the bonds of family and the discovery of another not being who they seem, which is ultimately what Chris found to be the major flaw of today's society.Into the Wild is a movie full of joy, adventure, sadness, beauty, nature, devastation, intense happiness, and unforgettable wisdom. A beautiful movie unlike any other.

I should say up front that I am related (not closely) to the director of this movie. However, trust when I say that any bias I have would cause me to feel more negative than positive about a film if it was not up to par. I was, frankly, quite disappointed with The Mexican, and was hoping Mr. Verbinsky would have chosen better material this time around. In my opinion, this source material gave him the ability to demonstrate some real talent.First, the good. The look of this film is very Fincher-esque. The grays, the blues, the blacks, they are all used heavily. In less capable hands, this would only convey sadness and depression. Here, the dreariness conveys something beyond a simple, sad world. This world is haunted. Every shadow, every corner, every closed door seems to be hiding something. The atmosphere it generates is perfect for this story, and doubles its effectiveness. The soundtrack (or lack thereof) complements this. There are no cheesy moments of thumping melodramatic compositions getting in the way of things. It's understated and haunting, often going for creepy white noise instead of overwraught symphonies.Beyond the good looks, there is substance. This leading lady is no pushover. She is determined and driven, never helpless. The remaining cast plays out well, too. All of the cast members seem to have exaggerated features, which gives them almost the feel of a comic book, and adds to the surreal feeling of this world we're looking at. These are not the usual horror movie flakes waiting to add to the bodycount. These are accessible characters with real flaws but are smart enough to make you believe they have a chance of thinking, not fighting, their way out of the situation the find themselves in. I found this quite refreshing.The scares come early and often. This is not a slasher movie, since a large part of the mystery here is wondering what the heck happened to the people who get killed off. You get bits and pieces, just enough to tease you each step along the way.The plot is effective, some things are very subtle and will likely not be picked up by everyone. In discussions with others, I found that people were looking for plot holes in the wrong places. The video, how it was made, that's all there and reasonably explained if you pick up on it. This subtlety is nice for someone like me who enjoys figuring things out and picking up on seemingly innocent clues. Sadly though, there are some key plot elements that do not hold up under the same scrutiny, and that holds the film back from true greatness.My score: 8 out of 10. Good scares, great acting, beautiful to look at. Lets you dig deep for answers, but you'll find bigger holes along the way. If you can forgive that, or at least suspend your disbelief, you'll have a good time.

What's so special about this movie?! Looks like Hollywood is concentrated on entertainment only so when something "serious" comes out, it is called art. Oh come on! This movie is not a bad one, but it is also far away from being called a masterpiece. At the moment it is on #33 on top 250 of the best films of all times. Just one question for Mr. Scorsese: how many times will you shoot the same movie again and again? I mean, this one is the same as Casino, which was the same as Goodfellas... OK, the stories were a bit different, but they all look the same (the structure, the music, the acting). Hollywood has definitely lost the magic, all the movies are done the same way - you know what to expect. Just like you know what you'll get when you order a Big Mac. Again - this movie is not a bad one, but I don't like too much. It will be forgotten in few years.

Spirited Away is the latest in a string of incredible animated films by Hayao Miyazaki, the most renowned animator in Japanese history and most say in the best in world. He takes a couple steps close to the best in the world title with this film. It's the story of Chihiro as she is caught in a world where humans are not allowed: a world of magic, gods and a Japanese bathhouse. As we meet Chihiro we realize that she is a bit spoiled and has never done anything for herself. As her adventures progress, she matures in ways that she doesn't even realize. This is a journey of self-discovery and a study in forced independence. Many have compared it to Alice In Wonderland, but where Alice, I thought, was a two-dimensional character going from adventure to adventure, Chihiro is well rounded. She figures out how to be adaptable to an ever-changing world and discovers how to solve her problems instead of running away from them. She is a `real' girl shoved into a world of Japanese mythology where she is ignorant of the rules.And her problem solving is the best part of the film and the reason I liked this one better then Princess Mononoke. Chihiro uses her kindness, courage and courtesy as her weapons. Even when violence erupts all around her, she relies on her wit and intelligence instead of magic, swords or arrows. These are lessons that children should be exposed to instead of explosions and gore that make up a lot of cinema. If I had kids, you bet I'd be taking them to see this one.But don't get me wrong; this film is able to thrill adults, too. It is so full of imagination the film seems barely able to contain itself. While it is not as lush as Mononoke (it may have been the print I saw), Spirited Away is gorgeously animated and the dubbing work is almost perfectly synched. In fact, after Chihiro is whisked away I didn't even notice anything out of place.There were; however, about three scenes that I remember thinking that the score seemed out of place and became distracting, but that's my only complaint. I can easily see why this is Japan's biggest moneymaking film of all time. It's a story well told with visuals beautiful to behold. It's simply timeless.

So forced, so self-conscious, so uncomfortable. What was Parker Posey doing in this clunker? I suppose the movie folks thought that putting Cameron Diaz in all kinds of tight clothes and having these three gals talk so brazenly about sex would make them come across naturally as "party girls." They come across as TRYING.

OK. First of all, Kristen Stewart was a bad choice. Snow White is supposed to be the most beautiful girl in the country, yet Kristen Stewart is hardly beautiful. She makes the same expression in every scene: that of a mouth breathing donkey. Acting is over the top, which I guess is to be expected. Effects are cheap looking, there's no chemistry between anyone in the film at all, and why the hell does Snow White become a warrior in the end? It's like the movie just changed into a completely different film. Suddenly she's no longer Snow White, the gentle princess who heals the world and bonds with forest creatures. She's Joan of Arc. WTF?Chris Hemsworth is good in it. Maybe that's because you know what o expect from him if you've seen him as Thor. The thing is, he's not bad at performing in less corny rolls. His fake drinking could use some work, but he's not bad.Did I mention Kristen Stewart is ugly as sin?

From director John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing, Starman), this sequel to the director's original Escape from New York is rated lower, and as I found the first film a good watch I was interested to see how the follow up would fare. Basically it is the year 2013, and a series of earthquakes have caused the city of Los Angeles to separate from the country, and just like New York it is a giant prison for criminals to live in. It is there that terrorist Cuervo Jones (Georges Corraface) has kidnapped Utopia (A.J. Langer), the daughter of the President (Spider-Man's Cliff Robertson), and brainwashed her to steal a device that controls an EMP weapon system orbiting the Earth. The only person who can stop the bad guys and retrieve the doomsday device is former soldier, and the man who survived New York, one-eyed rebel Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), who only agrees a deal to help the good guys in exchange for his freedom and his life. To make sure that he does the job he has been injected with Plutoxin 7 virus, which will kill him in ten hours, he only be cured when he has retrieved the weapon device, and possibly even killed the President's daughter. The President is unconvinced the war hero turned criminal will do it, but Cmdr. Malloy (Stacy Keach) knows that he will do anything to get his own way, and of course save his skin, all they can do is wait for him to contact them. Plissken is helped along the way by rebel fighter Taslima (Valeria Golino), crosses paths with dodgy swindler Map to the Stars Eddie (Steve Buscemi), and meets up with old friend Hershe Las Palmas (Jackie Brown's Pam Grier) the transsexual gang leader. By the end, Snake successfully recovers the doomsday device, defeats the bad guys, and all along he wasn't actually infected at all, it was a trick to make him do the job, but with a hologram and the real device handy, Snake gets his own back and activates the device, to bring all power and electricity to the world to an end. Also starring Peter Fonda as Pipeline, Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills and Michelle Forbes as Brazen. The cast is all fine, and the story is relatively interesting, the only problems are that some of the special effects could be much better, and you feel like it is something you have seen before, which is true, but there are some likable enough explosive sequences, so it is not a completely terrible futuristic action thriller sequel. Okay!

I pay my hard earned money to see space battles -- I live on Earth, and I don't want to see the crew walking around on planets. I want to see things I haven't seen before -- I want to feel out of my element, and on the edge of my seat.Paramount finally made a Star Trek movie with space battles better than any movie released to date.Star Trek has always been about being out-gunned, out-classed, and out-matched, yet survival is maintained by the skin of the captian's teeth, and the seat of his pants!This is the first Star Trek movie released that gave me the feeling that the Enterprise (and the Federation) might actually lose. It's all about triumph over overwhelming odds. If you like space battles, this is your movie!

I could put up with the hurried storyline - it's an adaptation, it requires changes, alright. I could put up with the rather poor acting. (Giggling Elizabeth, dull-witted Bingley or Darcy for that matter, etc. although there were a few exceptions.) But where is the wit gone ? Joe Wright seems to have tried to make a romantic love-story, and I suppose it is as good a goal as any, but then I do not think Pride&Prejudice was good material. Its plot is, after all, quite predictable. What makes the book so delightful is, I think, Austen's wit, which is completely lacking here. Without it, the too-perfect heroine became quite irritating, and the film utterly boring. (Having said that, I hope that not many think as I do; I doubt I would have really tried and read Austen's books had I seen this film before reading any of them.)

I'm always prepared to give a movie a chance.. I did not think the original Total Recall was a perfect movie, it was far from Arnie's best work (see Predator and Terminator for that) but I do remember that it had a strong and clear creative style, a really great score and beautiful martian imaginary, when I watched it I felt like I was some place else In this movie I didn't get that, the score is extremely generic sounding and underwhelming, the world seems very claustrophobic and apart from one or two wide shots we don't really get to see it, nor hear it.. the ambiance is practically non existent. Visually they go for an Asian futuristic Blade Runner blend, but it comes nowhere even close. Unlike Blade Runner in most scenes we have ambient things going on in the background that we do not hear at all So the focus is more on the characters in this remake than the world which they inhabit.. unfortunately this draws attention to some very bland performances and quite poor acting. I always like watching Farrel but even he feels restrained here, Beckinsale is 100% rubbish as usual.. her accent meandering from something resembling American to posh British, she has no expression and is just a bore to watch same as always. I've seen video game characters with better acting skills (eg. Miranda or Jack, Mass Effect 2). No one else really stood out to me I love sci-fi so if this truly were a good movie I would know about it, but it just isn't. The best sci-fi movie of 2012 without a doubt was Dredd so do yourself a favour and watch that instead, it's budget was one quarter of Total Recall and it has all the things this movie lacks in spades

Yes, it's an unintended Ed Wood/Richard O'Brien mash-up summary line, which seems like both a slam against the talented writer Mr. O'Brien and the talentless writer/director Mr. Wood.I can honestly say I'd never heard of THE ROOM until that Entertainment Weekly article of a few years ago describing its new life as an audience participation midnight movie classic like ROCKY HORROR. But unlike ROCKY HORROR (which despite bombing in its initial release, has some high quality in both acting and songs/dancing and remains relevant to this day), THE ROOM is a certifiable piece of crap from the opening scene to the bitter end. And also unlike ROCKY HORROR, I really doubt the main actors of THE ROOM will still have any sort of show-biz careers in the near future, let alone 35 years later.But I had to see it, if for nothing else see just what was behind the creepy Tommy Wiseau "mug shot" used in on the cover, which of course was prominently displayed on an L.A. billboard for several years. I did make it through to end, but it sure helped to be reading snarky reviews of it on IMDb while the train wreck was playing. And the fact Wiseau seems to have worse skin than Andy Warhol did, and felt compelled to give us a "full-backal" view of said skin, made it all the more hilarious. And for the unintentional comedy, I'm "awarding" it an extra star in my rating.I guess my only recommendation is, if you must see THE ROOM, check it out at a midnight "participation screening". Watch it at home, and you'll feel like you're trapped in a specific room, and that room is known universally as hell.

Good God, what were the filmmakers thinking? I have never seen the stage show on which this nightmare of a film is based, but watching this thing, I have to wonder if it's really any better, even with people who can actually sing.The plot and characters are nonexistent, and the songs often have little to do with what little is actually going on in the story, but those are not the reasons why this film is so terrible. It's the obnoxiousness and utter lack of charm and humor. Every moment is cluttered with screeching, laughing, screaming, and terrible singing. It's enough to make a lover of musicals abandon the genre forever.Just stay away from your own health.

This is for those of you who are avid film watchers and take it very seriously. Others will only applaud this film as a wonderful work. Avid film watchers will gush.Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'--well, frankly it tickled the bottom of my cockles. I'm very rarely tickled in that magically hidden place of pleasure (save for many random moments from my fiancé). After watching this film, I can't sum up my feelings for it in one review. I must see it again, and again. I wanted to see it right after I got done watching it, but all showings were sold out at the theater I was at.This movie will kick you in the teeth, figuratively speaking. If in an IMAX theater though, it will at least rattle your teeth as it is booming in those theaters.The acting is superb throughout. The directing, the lighting, the action, the set pieces, the script and plot are great as well. Ledger may be getting his just rewards for his portrayal of the Joker, but I feel the other actors are getting short-shrifted in their praise. They all do very well. Even the swat team members who really have no names in the movie.As for critics and their assertions about the movie? Too dark, too grim and depressing? No, not at all. In fact, it surprised me how far it didn't go in that direction. The graphic novels are a lot more depressing from time to time. A work of art? A masterpiece? Oscar worthy material? Yes. Yes to all three questions. More importantly though, this film is masterfully made work of love. Love for the source material. Love for film, and most importantly love for the human being.We can be soulless creatures every now and then. We can. When the chips are down, however, we show who we really are. Not schemers, not killers. We're human. We do what we have to in order for us to survive. When the chips are down, we will band together.

Not a "remake" so much as a "revision" of Romero's famous original. While some of the more appealing elements of the original are gone (like most of the "mindless mall rat" aspect of the zombies), and others of the original rules are bent or broken, I'd still rate this as the best zombie movie since, well, the last Romero-inspired film (Day of the Dead).With a bigger budget, bigger stars, and bigger effects, the movie is somewhat more of an action film than the original Romero series...and that worked quite well for me. My own personal rating of a flick like this depends heavily on the creep factor, the adrenaline factor, or a combination of both...and as far as I was concerned it delivered.Could this movie (and last year's far more turgid 28 Days Later) signal the revival of the true horror flick? Well, yes, it could. I personally found it refreshing to have zombies that moved fast -- and the nature of the film is powered up by that notion. Imagine BlackHawk Down crossed with the original Dawn of the Dead. There are a number of big, fast-paced, grab-your-attention-and-don't-let-go sequences that had me gritting my teeth in both tension and enjoyment.Final analysis -- there are only a few obvious improvements that could have been made, I'll go see the flick again for a second round of enjoyment, and I'm already looking forward to the eventual DVD release. Two thumbs up (that's all I'm equipped with).(Oh yeah...did I mention? All the blood looks =real=, as do virtually all of the gore effects, a rare event in any horror film).

Just like the Matrix films, I fear that only about 1% of the audience will really understand the deeper meaning of this film. Yes, some people thought the Matrix followed the Bible somewhat, but couldn't really put their finger on it - that trilogy went way beyond the exoteric and this film does the same. This is an absolute masterpiece! Hopefully when the DVD comes out, they will do something with the bonus features similar to what they did with the Matrix special editions and have modern-day philosophers comment scene-by-scene. At least that caused some viewers to understand that there was more to the Matrix trilogy than meets the eye, but that still only scratched the surface. I had high expectations for a Wachowski film, and this did not disappoint!

Dave Lizewski is an unnoticed high school student and comic book fan who one day decides to become a super-hero, even though he has no powers, training or meaningful reason to do so.Superhero movies have lost originality, have loads of cliché, and every bit of it has become bland. In 2010, however, Kick-Ass has introduced us to a new breed of superheros and has designed it's own genre. A mixture of ultra-violence, comedy, and pure awesomeness. The trailer is a bit sketchy and made me have no intention of seeing the film in the first place. This changing when I saw the reviews. Kick-Ass, for one, is hilarious! I expected humor, but the humor is great and somewhat infused with dark comedy. The acting (surprisingly) was great and even Nicholas Cage did an good job. Then the plot (sounding extremely cliché) introduces new ideas and just pure fun. The ultra-violence was a change too and made this film even more unique. The rising director has lots in store for him and hearing of the sequel, I have high hopes. Kick-Ass is definitely a highlight of 2010 and will draw you in to a pop-cultured world, as of ours today, and will definitely want you to re-watch with friends. 9/10.

This has been the closest Disney ever came to realism with their characters. we get "almost" real looking characters with conversations you can relate to. the Hair looks so real and the water is a character by itself.. a likable one too!It was nice to see the company be more culturally aware with the material and portray the island myths and legends properly.As a movie however it is someone lack luster, there are so many call backs to Disney's little mermaid that I was just waiting for a kraken to pop up instead of ursula. You have a girl *coughprincesscough* that "wants more" that wants to see what's beyond the borders of her home and a father *coughkingcough* that forbids it. doesn't give her a reason just forbids it. Even when the reason is given it's the same one king trident had in the TV series of the little mermaid!If that's not enough when she finally sings her song she gives the same iconic stand as Arial does when the was crash behind her. it was eerie... As a whole the visuals were beautiful, characters almost too realistic but the movie is an average one with a very straight forward predictable plot.

After Black Swan, Brothers, and the Other Boleyn Girl, I was really worried about Natalie Portman becoming the go-to girl for suffering. Whew! So glad she did this movie! She laughs! She smiles! She eats! She makes wisecracks! She and Ashton Kutcher are very funny together.I laughed out loud and thoroughly enjoyed it in all of its raunchy and embarrassing glory. Each of the supporting cast is great fun and has a chance to shine.Possibly the funniest idea for a mix CD. And a satisfying ending for all concerned. Worth the price of admission for the scene involving periods!Don't charge right out when the end credits come up - scenes come right after the first credits, though no post credit goodies.

Bruce Willis gives an outstaning performance in this action-packed third entry in the Die Hard series. Samuel L. Jackson also gives a great performance as well, and he provides most of the laughs in this entertaining film. This film features awe-inspiring action sequences, humor, daring escapes, evil bad guys, a superb plot and fantastic acting. Die Hard: With a Vengeance is by far one of the best Die Hard films ever made. It is far better than Die Hard 2 and has more action than the original Die Hard. Fans of the other Die Hard films are sure to get a kick out of this amazing movie!

Like many people, I enjoyed this movie, but there was several one big plot problems that kept me from giving the movie a higher rating:1) The aliens have an arsenal of many different sophisticated weapons beyond our technology, but never use any of them to demand better living conditions. Instead they trade them all for cat food. 2) The ship seemingly doesn't function for three months where the aliens are starving before humans go and cut a hole in its hull. Why does the ship magically work more than 20 year later?3) It seems unlikely one alien and his son could run the whole ship.4) Why isn't a large section of JSB, located directly under the ship, worried that that ship may loose power can land on top of them?5) The smart alien and his son spent 20 years finding pieces of their own technology that contain a fluid they use to get their "control module" back off the ground. Why are any pieces of the ship missing? There is no mention of the command module being damaged, nor the main ship.6) It seems unlikely so many of the aliens would be so unintelligent. If so few of the aliens have the knowledge of how things work, how can they manage 100's of thousands of the dumb aliens along with the ship?7) How can over 1 million aliens, that are larger than us, exist on that ship--it doesn't appear nearly large enough.8) It seems unlikely that humans and aliens would so easily be able to understand each other's language. We can't even figure out Dolphin-speak let alone an extraterrestrial language.

Joel Schumacher could have taken his one hundred million dollar budget and wallpapered his home with it and the money would have been better spent. My six year old brother had a hard time sitting through this poor, poor excuse for a movie. Made Twister look like Citizen Kane.

I loved the graphics (who didn't)they were so realistic although the timeline for events was B.S., and the story line was pathetic. Also, there were several times when the story and the action died out, so the audience lost it's captivation. A few even walked out! I guess the rest of the audience including myself stayed to bring closure to this poor and crippled story. For those that've watched the movie, what's with the mutant over-sized wolves? HaHaHa - What a load! Wolves are scavengers by nature, and there were plenty of dead people around to scavenge. Even if they weren't into eating cold carcases they couldn't have been so hungry as to try and take on 3 adult human males. LoL. Especially only after escaping the animal holding pens a few days earlier where they were well fed I'm sure.One last thing I'll mention (and this is pretty petty but I thought it was kinda funny), when the boys grabbed the penicillin, did anyone see them grab a needle to? Penicillin isn't topical, so how will they administer it to the girls infected leg? Overall, There are way to many other inaccuracies to the movie, way to many to mention. ;^) My advise is to either save your money and not see the film, or just go to enjoy the cool extreme graphics presentations.

The most popular in terms of quality film trilogy ever made ends in such a haunting, unforgettable manner."The Godfather" films are that good that make you comment about it's most important scenes and makes you forget about the production values which are perfect anyways.In this last chapter of the trilogy, we find a more mature but ill Michael who finally decides to take the family's direction into legality. But crime never pays. The consequences are deadly and now Michael, who always tried to protect his family, will understand too late about crime's consequences.Francis Ford Coppola's masterful direction does it again. He creates a parallel world filled with beautiful Italian exteriors, classy camera angles such as in the infamous helicopter attack, and the never tensing opera climax. His directing skills never went away and he gives a unique looking style to the trilogy. The soundtrack is as beautiful, haunting, and dark at the same time. It's just as good as in the previous movies.The acting is glorious. Al Pacino delivers a dramatic performance and takes Michael to a whole new level that we didn't see in previous films. He displays regret, sadness, fury, and even a diabetes attack. All his emotions are powerful and demonstrates why he is the spinal cord of the trilogy. I will never forget the scene where he gets a first diabetes attack and curses against his enemies, and figures out what was going on. Also, when he is in the need to eat a candy or drink orange juice; that's acting. Also, it broke my heart his last crying and how he screamed after his daughter's murder. Diane Keaton is just fine but do not add anything special to the movie, that's my take. Andy García is one good looking guy and delivers a brave performance in the likes of James Caan's Sonny in the original. Joe Mantegna is an actor you have to love, he's charming and plays his part perfectly. I didn't care for Talia Shire's acting, it was wooden in my opinion. The same goes for Sofia Coppola who delivers an extremely wooden performance. She didn't display the most powerful feelings correctly. I always wonder, "how would Winona Ryder be in that part?". Richard Bright plays Neri in such a class act that you just don't forget him. The rest of the cast is excellent.The cinematography and art direction is just fine and displays the early 90's artistic techniques.The plot is complex but easy to follow and deals with politics, religious authorities immersed with crime, betrayal, loyalty, power, but in the end, everything is summed up with a single word "business".But getting out crime has it's deadly consequences. Crime never pays. The consequences derive in assassinations, conspiracies, church's dark interests, and more.The addition of Vincenzo Corleone added fresh air to the series mainly because he is very different from Michael. It was like bringing back Sonny but in a younger and more clever version. It was also a manner to connect the last chapter with the previous films.Important events from previous films play an important part in Michael's fate. He feels guilty and regrets for Fredo's murder. Anytime he listens to a Hail Mary, dark memories invade his mind. Also, he knows how to deal with Vincent because he perfectly handled Sonny's impulses and raging reactions. It was nice for the fans to hear constantly the name of Vito Corleone, Sonny, and more. Plus, it's always a pleasure to see Al Neri and the rest of the Corleone allies such as Don Tomassino, Calo, and more. Heck, even Johnny Fontaine returns for a last singing! Plus, Michael's children now grown up play an important and vital part. Anthony and Mary are Michael's most appreciated treasure. Special mention for Bridget Fonda's super sexy appearance. I love blondes with long legs and beautiful face.This time, the Corleone's enemies do not represent such a big menace in terms of menacing looks or violent ways. The new enemies are more clever and cold blooded. Except for the thrilling and spectacular helicopter attack; we don't get much shootings as in previous films. That's when we learn that crime is more dangerous through briefcases, tables, and church. Don Altobello was the perfect nemesis for Michael; he is wise, knows who to convince, and pulls the strings masterfully. Joey Zasa is a regular gangster in the likes of Don Fanucci and do not represent a threat for the Corleones. The Vatican Bishop and Lucchetti, a strict-right moralist who is against the Corleone's immersion into "religious business". He's by far the most menacing enemy. But we also need to remember about Mosca, a Sicilian capo that is widely known for not failing an attack.There are memorable scenes in this movie, beautiful, haunting moments. The family photo at the beginning of the movie displays that family means union and it's Michael's treasure. Michael dancing with Mary, Vincent counterattacking an assassination attempt, the infamous and sad opera attack, the helicopter attack, the filling of Zasa, Tommassino's sad murder, Mary's murder, Al Neri's final display of his skills, Vito's childhood home visit, and of course, the top three Godfather moments: Michael's last thoughts that deal with the important women of his life, then, he dies alone. It's just as haunting as the flashback in part II which features him eating alone, thinking, planning his future.The last Godfather finds death in such a sad but poetic manner.

"Before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday, she will fall into a sleep like death!" The very first feature film I've seen(as far as I can remember)was the original Walt Disney film "Snow White and the seven dwarfs" when I was about 6 years.It was in such a tiny village cinema in the pre-smart phone era.You could actually enjoy a movie without the feeling that you were in some kind of nightclub with all these luminescent screens.That movie made quite an impact on me. Maybe that's when my love for the medium of film was created.Later in life, I read lots of books.Especially the fantasy genre appealed to me. A fantasy world as Terry Pratchett,Feist,Terry Goodkind and Tolkien (of course) described it.When reading a book about a mythological and magical world populated by dwarfs,giants,wizards and knights,I spent hours in this imaginary setting.The film industry also amused me with great movies like "Willow","The Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia.". Ashamed I have to admit that I was eager to see the first Harry Potter movie,as if I was still a teenager. And nowadays, being a father, I enjoy watching "Frozen" and old Walt Disney classics with my two kids. To make it short: I still love a fairy tale once and a while! "Jack the Giant Slayer" and "Snow White and the Huntsman" already appealed to me. The first one because of the beautiful SE's and the impressive giants.The second film because of the gang of funny dwarfs. Sad enough the expression on the face of Kristen Stewart was again of the same level as a typical pancake.That disappointed me a bit. And that's the most successful part of "Maleficent":.The wide range of expressions that Angelina Jolie demonstrates herein.No discussion.She was perfect for the role. That soft and sweet look while relaxing and during loving moments. The menacing, unyielding gaze during a confrontation. The devastating evil glance at the time she felt betrayed and hurt. Both facial expressions as body language are used by Jolie in a fantastic way. Those glittering eyes, those sharp cheekbones,the dominance and that demonic laughter. I never thought I would say this about Angelina Jolie,but this was really a beautiful rendition.Everyone knows the story of "Sleeping Beauty", so it's a bit pointless to summarize it here. But if you assume that this is an ordinary film that doesn't deviate from the original story, then you are mistaken. This time they looked at it from a different angle. And I must admit that you can call it a fairly successful result. First of all the build-up to the story of "Sleeping Beauty" was magnificent. Although it looked more like the intro of "Settlers". It felt like a cartoon. That feeling goes away the moment you enter the Moors. A magical land adjacent to the human civilization, where only peace and happiness prevails, and one does not know or understand the human traits of greed and envy. A magical landscape populated by all sorts of wondrous characters, including the small (but powerful) fairy Maleficent who lives in a huge tree. That she eventually becomes the evil and vengeful witch because of underhanded treachery, is a very creative brain twisted idea that the filmmakers have used here. And the denouement differs somewhat from the original fairy tale. But I must admit that I found it extremely fascinating and unique.About the parts being played I can be short and concise.There is only one masterful rendition in "Maleficent" and that's the one Jolie takes care of. The whole movie revolves around this character and (I can not say it enough) she did it masterfully and professionally. An engaging and friendly character at the beginning,who's determined to defend the Moors against the humans.And then transforming into a nasty, evil witch with a devilish smile.The most striking imaginative scenes were the battle at the Moors and the christening. Then you see her slowly transform into an understanding person with remorse. For once I felt sorry for the wicked person from a fairy tale and sympathised with her.The other members of the cast were reduces to meaningless roles that were necessary for the story because of this acting by Madame Jolie. Elle Fanning did well as Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) but was really annoying after a while with her innocent giggling all the time. Sharlto Copley was convincing as the power-hungry King Stefan. And the three fairies, who were given the task to guard Aurora until her 16th birthday, didn't look great when they were still mini. But they took care of the humor side of the story. The only one who could make an impression next to A. Jolie, was Sam Riley as Diaval. But I guess the successful effects when he transformed into a horse or dragon again, had something to do with that.And then there is the second very important part of this film : the special effects. These were at times overwhelmingly great. The landscape of the Moors, the creatures living there, the battle against the humans with the living trees (immediately reminded me of "The Ents" from TLOTR), the dragon and the flying skills of Maleficent herself. Breathtaking and simply beautiful. With a budget of roughly $ 200 million it ought to be. And Stromberg as a director also guarantees that. He knows the craft of visual effects, looking at his impressive resume on IMDb.An entertaining movie with a masterful interpretation. Nothing negative to say then ? Oh yes, it's sometimes so blandly and predictable. Immediately you feel where it's going and how the denouement will be. It's not very original and the surprising twist is actually obvious. But it's a long time since I was immersed in a fairytale atmosphere like this and momentarily I forgot I had already passed that age where you still believed everything. I believed in it again during 97 wonderful minutes.More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be

Predators doesn't live up to the first movie and, worse still, it doesn't live up to the second either. It's storyline is very tedious and simplistic – it's a violent game of cat-and-mouse thrown in with some people who are either careless and maniacal or just plain bland, the subplot involving Nolad's character didn't help matters either.The movie follows Adrien Brody's character Royce, who is abducted by an alien race and released along with seven other professional killers on an alien planet. On the planet, they meet Nolad, who is played by Laurence Fishburne, who has been surviving on the planet for years and tells the group they were chosen so the Predators could train their skills and so, the group must find a way to survive and escape the planet. It could have been a little more enjoyable if the movie didn't take itself seriously. The main problem with Predators is the whole story. It just started to become boring within minutes of the movie starting and it tries to make up for it by mindless violence and gore and even then, the action scenes weren't so great. The movie opened okay as we jump right into the action but soon after the group land on ground and the dialogue starts, that was when the movie started to lose interest and credibility and that was when the unnecessary scenes started. The characters talked about nothing interesting and they didn't talk about anything that was relevant to the movie, it was either pointless and quite annoying.Predators just doesn't stop with the problems and the flaws it has as the characters had no personality to them, except for what they do such as a scientist, a prisoner, a member of the Yakuza and a mercenary. If the writers left that little bit of information out, there would be no point to any of the characters whatsoever, none of them stood out and you didn't care about what happened to them. Another problem with the movie is the acting. Don't get me wrong, there are some fine actors in this movie such as Adrien Brody, Laurence Fishburne, Alice Braga and Topher Grace but you can't help but wonder how they weren't good in this movie and furthermore, you question what they're doing in this movie. Adrien Brody was the youngest actor to win an Academy Award for Best Male Actor for his performance in The Pianist and yet he did a poor job in this movie, he wasn't convincing at all as tough guy Royce. It felt like Brody was trying to copy Christian Bale's hoarse Batman voice as he hardly moved his jaw and he spoke as if he was in desperate need of water. You have a sudden urge to cram a Strepsil or a Locket down his throat. Another irk was how his character suddenly worked everything out just by doing the smallest of things, you began to think he'd tell us the entire history of the planet when he brushed an eyelash or scratched his head, it quickly became annoying. Laurence Fishburne wasn't too bad as Nolad but I've certainly seen him do a lot better in movies such as The Matrix and the fantastic Akeelah and the Bee so the acting lets the movie down even more.The action didn't keep your attention at all, it was uninspiring, boring and had been done before so much better a million times before. There was one particular scene in the movie that was well done and that was, what I like to call, 'the booby-traps' scene. What happens here is one of the one-dimensional characters steps on a massive log in their path and the whole group start avoiding traps, such as falling spikes from trees and camouflaged spike pits. It was very well executed but straight after that scene, it just went back to being tedious and the dialogue being cringe-worthy. Not only is it possibly one of the worst science-fiction movies ever but it's also one of the worst movies 2010 has had so far. One could even go so far to say that it's possibly ruined the Predator series, as it was just unnecessary and just daft.Read more reviews at: www.dudedazzmoviereviews.wordpress.com

This is one of the very good movie which i have watched . All the actors have done a good job . The location was good of the movie and the techniques which was used for the making the movie is also up to the mark .Special effects are performed in a very good manner .The main actors have done very good job for the movie .This is one of the very good movie which i have watched . All the actors have done a good job . The location was good of the movie and the techniques which was used for the making the movie is also up to the mark .Special effects are performed in a very good manner .The main actors have done very good job for the movie .This is one of the very good movie which i have watched . All the actors have done a good job . The location was good of the movie and the techniques which was used for the making the movie is also up to the mark .Special effects are performed in a very good manner .The main actors have done very good job for the movie .