Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 1

It's rare that the sequels can out do the original, but the first Avenger does not hold a candle to the Winter Soldier and The Winter Soldier is nothing compared to Civil War.A superhero movie with some real depth to it, Civil War is not so loosely based on the Marvel comics event. All the Events since the first Avengers movie are being called in check, when the UN forces a political policy on the Avengers that would allow them to regulate how superheroes battle the forces of evil. Captain America is not for it, while Iron Man is, putting them on different sides.Just like Winter Soldier, what makes this movie so good is that it is basically an Avengers movie, having pretty much all of them in the same film at once, with some extra added surprises, like The Black Panther making his debut on the screen, Spider-Man joining the marvel cinematic universe and Ant-Man showing off his full capability.I was a little nervous that Cap would get lost in the shuffle of his own picture. He does, kinda, but thankfully the movie is about him being the leader of the Avengers so he does get some screen time. I love Cap, he has the flair of a a comic book, but the moves of the greatest action hero, and even though Chris Evans gives his best performance as the Star Spangled Avenger, we all did not come to see him. Civil War has the same appeal of X2, Just so many superheroes in the film, and it was done right. It's hard to say which is cooler, watching the spark happening between the Scarlet which and the vision. Seeing the origin of the Black Panther, or watching Tony Stark having a heart to heart with Peter Parker. Definitely the latter, because I though that Spider-Man's appearance in the film would be overkill, but you could not help but to clap when he comes on the screen. Tom Holland is going to do for Spider-Man what Christian Bale did for The Dark Knight.For those of you who hate how these movie superheroes don't seem to go up against a proper villain, I have to say that Helmut Zemo does not have the flamboyance you expect from a villain, like if you compare him to Loki (he does have the hate of Magneto, however), he was the perfect Villain for Civil War and adds well to everything the movie is.It's big and Epic,and action packed, and within all that is some serious drama that gets to you. Darker than you'd expect these Marvel movies to be, but still a ton of laughs and entertaining fun.It's what Avengers: Age of Ultron could have been and what Batman Vs. Superman really (really) should have been. Sorry Deadpool, but you've been replace as my favorite superhero movie of the year!No matter what side you pick, you win if you go see Captain America: Civil War.

First I have to admit: I have never read the comics, because I usually dislike comics. Then again a film should stand alone as a film regardless of it being an adaptation of anything, be it a novel, comics or anything else. Indeed the cinematography in Sin City is interesting and the aesthetics is stylish and glittery. But that doesn't change the fact that Sin City is truly awful. It is perhaps one of the worst films I have seen in years. Its 124 minutes were excruciatingly dull, devoid of humour, interest or even a narrative that actually makes sense. Who cares about a disfigured bully on a campaign of mutilation, a violent cop craving for sex, or a good whore saviour fighting a bunch of Irish grenade freaks jumping out of no where? None of the characters have any human attributes to them. They all fail to become nothing more than cartoons. Sin City is boring, self indulgent, superficial, idiotic, childish, and perhaps more pertinently of them all, lacking any substance or insight with which I could identify as a viewer. It is nothing but meaningless fluff. There is something profoundly American about Sin City, and about the enthusiasm with which it is received. It is a vacuous concoction of all American themes, from the rotten cop to the good hearted criminal and the benevolent prostitute, packaged through recycled motifs and images of American consumerism. But it has no narrative, no tangible metaphor, nor any inkling of a remark on life or human existence. It is, to quote the lead character of 'Fight Club', a "copy of a copy of a copy", which amounts to nothing more than the collection of images that it reproduces. Like the fake tans and breasts which dominate Santa Monica beach, Sin City is nice to look at, but very unpleasant to touch. Behind the pretentious stylishness is an orgy of violence, sexism, chauvinism and fetishism, which is basically two vile and boring hours about nothingness.

With all the commercial hype, I can't believe this movie was a box office flop. I went to see it and plan to buy the DVD when it comes out (OK, yeah, I'm a big Sean Bean fan, but ...) and I thought it was a great movie. Granted it had some elements that we've seen before, but that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. One of those mysteries where the critics were kind but the viewers just stayed away. The action sequences were great, and the story was very thought-provoking. The acting was also really good, in my opinion. It's definitely an evening's entertainment even if it's not really Oscar material. And that's what I have to say about that. (OK, that's 10 lines - lol)

This is my first review for a Harry Potter movie, and its not because I didn't like the other ones, but this one touched me in a way that the other ones didn't. This one was very if not almost exactly like the book, which lately seems to be a problem for screenplay writers who butcher great books. In the book you felt ever emotion the characters felt, and in the movie you could feel the despair and the sadness ten fold; you are literally with Harry, Hermione, and Ron. The pace of the movie made it brilliant, it lengthened the movie until you counln't stand it anymore,but it also made it aggravating. It kept you on the edge of your seat, waiting for what you know whats going to happen; or you simply waited with Harry and his friends in endless weeks of doing nothing,which was translated into the movie beautifully. The effects were phenomenal(as always).Also the new characters were just perfect, the snatchers looked BADA@!#'s. Like rock stars. By far the beginning of the movie and the Ministry of Magic scene were the best! Stunning, my jaw was on the ground. So for all you Potter fans, you wont be disappointed, it is a brilliant movie and cannot wait for the second one.

I found the film really good and enjoyable the story line kept me wanting to watch the whole way through and i enjoyed the more erotic scenes to. The actors did a fantastic job especially with some scenes that may have been awkward and i did see the connection betweem the two.Mr Grey clearly had a bad childhood and clearly it has affected him that he closed himself off and found his type of pleasures a way to feel. Shame there is so many narrow minded reviewers on here.... I Look forward to the next film in 2016

I'm sorry but I just don't get the big deal over this movie. It is pure melodramatic schmaltz. Give me Cool Hand Luke or Papillon any day. Or how about Scum or even Chopper.I have to admit I felt the same way about The Green Mile, maybe it's just Stephen King's view of prison I don't like. As if he has a clue!I think he should just stick with the coming of age stuff (loved Stand By Me) and the isolated looneys (The Shining), things he can obviously relate to. Leave prison stories to the folks who actually leave their house.

the movie was just a little bit too raunchy for me and my kids. i am not saying it was a bad movie it was a little bit stupid. It was not the best Warner Brothers movie at all it was really not that great it hat 120 uses of the F word. It was a crappy crappy movie. I may of not liked it but that means u still may like it. But it stunk. It was stupid i just really hated this movie. But if you are looking for a movie to take your kids too this is not the movie. This was just a bad bad bad movie. This movie makes me want to throw up and have to poop it stinks so so so so much. I just hated this movie so much it makes the movie Delgo look good. I mean in this movie the dad wants the boy to lick the police man's pee pee. this movie just stunk. I just hated this movie more then any other movie ever made i want this movie to be destroyed that is how bad this movie was it was so so so so bad

The film works such a contradictory web around the viewer. We are left with a heavy feeling of frustration as Hanna (Kate) condemns herself to a life in prison because she is too proud to admit that she is illiterate. Her performance is excellent, and her character's feelings of embarrassment towards what she considers to be her deepest character flaw are ever-present. Hanna is so perpetually unable to see that her greatest flaw is in fact her pride. Ralph's character, Michael's, greatest flaw is his love for her, he too condemns himself to a life in jail, as he never moves forward, or finds someone else to love, but instead continues to remain in a distorted relationship with her, which is kept alive through the tapes he sends of novels which he reads aloud. He is not in jail, but may as well be as his love for Hanna is the only thing that sustains his tormented life. He himself is torn between loving Hanna, and hating the corrupting effect that she has had on his person. His performance, however, was quite bad. His unhappiness was beautifully portrayed, but his accent shifted back and forth between German and British all too easily. The director did a fantastic job in allowing each scene the time it needed to take an emotional effect on the viewer, we feel as though we are in every room that the characters are in, in terms of space and the time (Post WW2 Germany). The film very subtley comments on the sense of humanity inside each individual, even those who have been put into positions, in which they've had to do terrible things.

A bunch of weirdos gather in a helpline centre and partake in some unfunny black comedy.I always remember this movie as being fun, so every time Christmas comes around, i find myself watching it again, but every time i'm reminded of how cruel-spirited and unfunny it is.Its a ham-fisted misfired attempt at black comedy from Sleepless in Seattle writer-director Nora Ephron.2/10. See it for one of Australian actor Anthony LaPaglia's rare Hollywood appearances (as the psycho Santa Clause), the late Madeline Kahn in one of her annoying roles (as opposed to the lusty temptresses she played for Mel Brooks), and some of Steve Martin's worst comic timing.

I am a huge fan of Macaulay Culkin and I think this evil character of Henry is his best yet! He is such a good actor in this movie you might think he really was evil! It's such a used expression saying I was on "the edge of my seat," but I really was! My mouth and eyes were wide open the whole movie. You just sit there wondering what is about to happen, it'll drive you crazy, as it will with any good thriller! This is one of the best thriller/horror movies off all time!

I was initially hesitant to see the movie because I am not a big fan of musicals, and when I found out that this movie has little to no dialogues and all the cast sings all the way through the movie, I was really hesitant, but after hearing people raving about how amazing the movie was, I had to see it. And I am glad I did. The chemistry between the cast, the singing, and just movie in general. It was one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life. I usually don't write reviews, and the only time I ever log onto IMDb is to rate movies, but not write reviews. I logged into IMDb after seeing movies like The Fight Club, Momento, The Pianist, etc. movies that definitely impacted my life, but never left a review, but I feel like this movie is different. I highly recommend it. If you are on the fence about it, go and still see it. You won't regret it.

When i first saw the rating on IMDb, it was 6.6 with few thousand votes already. I thought to myself oh boy.. "it turns out its a flop". As the rating reached 7.1 over time and i saw my friend's reviews i decided to give it a try. I went to the theater with little expectation. Expecting some marvel style action, but boy was i pleasantly surprised.Firstly, graphics were flawless Secondly, the technologies of the future which the movie showed were awesome and thought provoking. For sure something that science lovers would appreciate. Thirdly, the story was captivating so was the acting performance. The lead character was exploring his environment and the tech of the ship and so was the audience and i think that's what made it enjoyable and attractive. Fourthly, as i mentioned, acting was top. The characters were interesting, funny, intelligent and the chemistry between the characters felt real.However the story had its weak moments. There were events which in short were not realistic but i chose to ignore. They were not big deal but it felt like it degraded the movie alittle bit. There was also the moral dilemma which i suspect is one of the reasons why it has such low rating and criticism. It's really about how each person perceived it. For some the end was bad, and others thought it was epic. But i personally loved it. The movie was exactly the type of movies that i love in spite of some of its weaknesses, therefore i rate it 10/10. Because i really enjoyed it and was captivated by it.

In my opinion, THE PARENT TRAP is a very romantic, witty, hilarious, and touching movie. The one person I really hated was Meredith (Elaine Hendrix). This was because she was an absolute witch who wanted Nick (Dennis Quaid) all to herself! Plus, she threatened to ship the twins (Lindsay Lohan) off to Switzerland. Also, I believe that the twins gave Meredith what she deserved on the camping trip. When Meredith got called "Cruella DeVil," I thought she deserved it. I laughed really hard when she said, "Who do you think I'm talking to? Robert De Niro? Yes, I'm talking to you." My favorite part, though, was when Nick, Meredith, and the twins were on the camping trip, which was where Meredith got some tricks pulled on her. That was absolutely hilarious! In conclusion, I highly recommend this film to all of you who are fans of Dennis Quaid or like a good romance.

After a long wait, I finally was able to watch "Snow white and the Huntsman" . I was very excited to watch this movie since it seemed to be a darker and more adult version of the famous tale. I wasn't disappointed with how darker and sinister it was, and Charlize Theron really brought the Evil Queen to life. This being said, I only watched about 30 minutes of the movie. The dark mood was there, the tragedy of a fallen kingdom, a little girl becoming an orphan and then being trapped... it was wonderful, until Kristen Stewart came in to scene.Before I get any negative comments on why I am saying I didn't like Kristen Stewarts performance, take in account I actually am a fan of Kristen Stewart. I watched the Twlight Saga religiously and she does her part well, and I liked her performance in Zathura, but I think she wasn't right for such a part.After about 10 minutes into the scene with Kristen Stewart running from the castle, I wasn't able to watch it anymore. She lacked the intensity the character demanded, and it became so bad at a certain point, I actually gave up on watching the movie I had waited so long to watch.I'm not saying she isn't a good actress, but she did seem quite expressionless in this movie. Overall, from what I watched, the soundtrack was inviting, the rest of the actors did their part well, and the backgrounds and outfits were absolutely amazing.

I thought with all the wonderful actors in this movie: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh etc.. that 'Touch of Evil' would be a great film. Shame on IMDb for ranking the movie 8.3! It was not a good story. The plot was not believable. Charles Heston (in the story) allowed his wife to stay in run-down, dangerous hotels which seemed ridiculous for him to do this. What man would put his wife in danger? The scenery was depressing also as it was all dull, grey, sandy, and boring. Most of the actors seemed miscast. For example who would believe Charlton Heston as a Mexican! Also I should not have to come up with 10 lines to review a mediocre film. This influences the review system to allow only people who like a movie to submit their reviews because those who do not like a film often cannot come up with the 10 lines necessary for a film to be submitted.

With these 4 actors together I expected something much more than what I got. Maybe my expectations ruined this for me because I felt that this movie didn't have enough laughs to keep me interested. Were there parts that I thought were funny? Sure, but it was more of a chuckle than a laugh.The preview made this look hilarious but like a lot of movie trailers, the best parts of the movie are in the trailer. The 4 of them arrive in Vegas, one of them was sort of tricked into going (De Niro's character) because he hates Michael Douglas' character for not showing up to his wife's funeral. There is a bit of a back story to that little triangle.I will say that the ending of the movie has a good message. And for the most part, the last 20 minutes or so were the most entertaining. But by then I had lost interest in these characters and I think if the beginning had me more interested I would've enjoyed the movie much more.

This movie is completely amazing! First thing of all, during the whole story we have the Christmas cozy mood: snow, coats, cigarettes, hot drinks, and well, a hot story. The most interesting thing about this film, is that you can feel two opposite things at the same time: you can feel the calm pace of the unwind, and how things are built, slowly and softly; but in the meantime you can feel Carol's and Therese's hearts craving for each other since the very first glance. Cate Blanchett is absolutely stunning acting as Carol Aird, an enigmatic and gorgeous mature woman; on the other hands, Rooney Mara is Therese, which is a cute and bashful young woman. When these two hearts collide, well, then the movie start to feel like a part of you, and you begin to love every scene of it. Intense, beautiful and inspiring, this movie is about a love story between two women who have feelings for each other; dearly feelings, that show us that there's no wrong way to love.

Pure incredible. Complicated and twisty which makes it incredible. If you haven't seen this movie and you're a fan of Serpico, Reservoir Dogs, Fargo, Heat, and Seven go out and see this NOW.. you'll NOT be disappointed. It gets a 10 out of 10 on the Skatt scale.

No. There really isn't.Moreso than most, the plot based on Moore's story is a horrible mashup of different story mythologies, and chains disjointed set pieces which make no sense in their own right let alone within the context of the whole, and full of fundamental holes. The technological anachronisms jar - an automobile that with an engine with contemporary grunt at a time when Benz had only just perfected the two-stroke engine, talk of tracking devices - as does the dialogue which leaps between stilted and contemporary modern.Given the money which has thrown at both the cast and the effects - the CGI is state of the art for the time, though still clearly recognisable as such - the film is a lost opportunity.In conclusion the whole thing is just painful to watch.

I'll always think of this movie as the one which introduced us to the acting talents of Edward Norton. In other words, this movie made him a star, as the cliché goes.But Richard Gere should be credited, too, with another fine acting performance. For quite awhile there, Gere acted in one good movie after another and I believe this was one of his best efforts. Sometimes his "pretty boy" image masked the fact that he has been a pretty darned good actor in a number of film.Not only is the acting superb in here - by everyone, not just Norton - but the story is very involving, too. I remember being riveted to the screen while seeing this in the theater. Some of the scenes are quite shocking, particularly when we discover the real "Aaron Stampler" (Norton). If you wait awhile (at least five years) and see it again, it's still shocking even if you vaguely remember a few things.The bad side of this - to me, not to most people, is the overuse of the Lord's name in vain in here (mostly by Gere, who is ridiculous in this role in that regard) and the obvious anti-Catholic bias in here. Once again on film, we discover that a priest turns out to not only be a sexual deviant but also the cause of Aaron's murderous mindset. I also didn't find Laura Linney's character, "Janet Venable" to be entertaining, just annoying. There's something about Linney's smug looks that really turn me off. I have found that unlikeable characteristic in some of her other films, as well.Overall, if language or Catholic-bashing doesn't bother you, this is a super film. Even if it does, it's a pretty intense crime movie and certainly entertaining.

Pleasant movie. Self-satisfied as a samba, not quite smug. Ridley Scott and the novelist live in Provence, and we don't, but they don't hold that against us. In fact, at the end, they invite us to come pick their grapes and frolic. Crowe was perhaps too aggressively interested in sleeping around to make this a chick flick. None of the jokes were actually funny, but they were all pleasant, and I liked the movie.The DVD's special features include three music videos by Russell Crowe. I watched all three. One of them, Weight of a Man, has him wearing a matador suit and charging us/the camera like we're a bull, or a cow, and he's got libidinal designs on us. It is listless and generic, a miscalculation almost to the scale of Shatner's Transformed Man. I would guess Crowe was hoping to snag one like Richard Harris did with MacArthur Park, but as he stalked the camera I found myself thinking "Just act, you maggot." Nothing personal.Surprisingly, the third song, Testify, actually finds some magic. If he could deliver songs of that quality for a whole set, I'd happily pay a cover charge, hoist a glass, and it'd be money well spent.

I have to say, after watching "Léon" countless times in the past, it never ceases to amaze me. There is a certain simplistic beauty in the shots, in the characters, and in the story. Léon, the title character, is a 'cleaner' who lives modestly in his apartment on the same floor as Mathilda (a young and endearing Natalie Portman), a pre-teen with a bad family life. When the slightly-unhinged, corrupt law enforcer Norman Stansfield (perfectly played by Gary Oldman) shows up and murders Mathilda's family, she has no choice but to seek help with her neighbor.And from there the story takes off; a bond slowly grows between Mathilda and Léon, and it all winds down to a heart-wrenching final scene. I just love this movie. Bravo, Luc Besson.(note: I suggest you watch "Léon" rather than the edited "The Professional." The former goes into much more detail in the relationship of the two main characters, and reveals more about their time together.)

This is one of those films that leaves you thinking for a while. It has a lot of a message in it. A message about will and determination. It has good acting and directing. Although the editing wasn't that good... But anyway, I don't see how this film wasn't nominated for any Oscar. Yet the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan were... Shouldn't we be tired already of the hundred different ways to present the same tiresome and cliched topic of WW2? Then when something new comes along we don't even pay attention to it...

Originally published on June 20, 2006:In a nod to Jim Carrey's "Bruce Almighty" – in which a regular Schmoe becomes almost omnipotent – Adam Sandler stars as a loser who is offered a "universal remote" control device, which gives him power over time and space – among other things.The remote is given to him by the otherworldly Morty (Christopher Walken), who is tinkering in the bowels of a Bed, Bath & Beyond store. Actually, the plot is taken from the "Twilight Zone" episode, "A Kind Of Stopwatch," which originally aired on Oct. 18, 1963, but this contraption also allows Michael Newman (Sandler) to mute, pause, review his past and (especially) fast-forward things around him.It's that latter feature, though, that causes the most havoc in his life, because as soon as he zips through one crisis (getting a cold, arguing with his wife, wishing for a promotion, having sex, etc.) after another, the machine programs itself, automatically forwarding through similar situations, and causing his existence to pass all too quickly before his eyes.While he strives to climb the company ladder at his architect firm, he begins to use the thing to avoid the months and years of hard work it would take for him to succeed; soon, however, as in most films of this fantasy ilk, the bad side is revealed. While his brain is fast-forwarding through bits of unpleasantness, his body remains - with little or no reaction to the things actually going on around him in his family's reality. Before he realizes it, his wife, Donna (Kate Beckinsale), is drifting away from him, and the relationship with his kids, Ben and Samantha (Joseph Castanon and Tatum McCann) is going to pot. Donna eventually divorces Michael and marries swim instructor, Bill (Sean Astin, "Lord of the Rings," "50 First Dates"), while the kids grow up estranged from their father. He's a big man at his company, sure, but no amount of success on the job can compensate for failure in the home.The lesson here is to spend as much quality time with your loved ones ("Family comes first") and there are no quick fixes in life. A bit maudlin and sappy, at times (although there are some pretty funny moments), plus about 10 minutes too long for my taste; but nice supporting work from Walken (who steals the picture), Henry Winkler and Julie Kavner (as Michael's meshugana parents), as well as David Hasselhoff, as his weirded-out boss, make this one of Sandler's better vehicles.Despite the obligatory flatulence sequences and the sometimes lowbrow Sandler humor, the message comes through without being too preachy and heavy-handed, and although his kids are horribly non-descript and uninteresting, there is enough decent chemistry between him and Beckinsale to make their relationship believable - to a point.Not Adam Sadler's best - that was "The Wedding Singer" (so far) - but good enough to enjoy.

Acting, Story line, directing. Just when you think you know what is happening, you get confused. It's a movie that makes you think. I have to re-watch the movie as I feel like I missed a few things just having to think, thinking I had it figured out.Great cast of characters, everything is in mesh. Very enjoyable movie with twists and turns. B. Cooper actually hits his mark. Loius CK is brilliant, and the cameo of a certain character really makes the movie that more enjoyable as you are not expecting to see what you're about to see. over all, I'd go watch the movie again just to make sure I didn't miss anything.

First things first, it is a better film that B v Superman. But it is obvious that when writer Josh Weldon (former Marvel director for Avengers) took over directing from Zack Synder the movie changed. You can literally see when this happens in the film. It starts off like a Synder DC movie, all dark and trying too hard to take itself way too seriously, then half way through the characters start joking with each other and the movie injects some relief. But its disjointed at best. The problem with DC universe on film is Zack and the control he has. Marvel is brilliant because they have oversight and provides a big picture platform, but they let aspiring directors (lots of them) take some risk and the result is unique fun films. This movie proves DC films will never be on par with Marvel films. Wonder Woman was great, but that was obviously a fluke. The other problem is they just mashed these characters together without time to get to know them. Not worth your hard earned money to see this film. Wait to see it free on an airline, you'll thank me for it.

So Napoleon tries to help his friend be the class president and deal with his weird family life. Although the genre is said to be 'comedy', I did not find anything funny in this movie. Actually, I did not see any point to this movie as well. The pace is very slow and nothing happens during the 82 minutes of its runtime. We are just shown how Napoleon lives his life and, to tell the truth, his life is really boring. Besides, his character is annoying and acts stupid. I can't see, how this movie could be a cult-classic, if the main character isn't likable at all. I wouldn't dare to recommend this movie to anyone, the plot is non-existent and no comedy at all.

Angelina looks great, but thank goodness they took mercy on the audience and kept it short...The plot doesn't make any sense, and has holes, making most of the exploratory scenes hard to sit through...The movie delivers on the action scenes, though, and for PG-13 fights (very few deaths, not much blood) they're still exciting. Cool locations, although the ancient city did look like a rejected model from "Mortal Kombat". The acting is good, her accent is passable, although I found Jon Voight a little sappy...I'd still go see the sequel if they get a better script...If you dig Angelina you'll prolly like it...

This telling of the many trials and tribulations of Judah Ben-Hur is indeed one of my favorite classic films.Watching it makes me wish I had been around to see it on the big screen back in the day.The story is quite captivating.He is forced to stand against a man who was a childhood friend that he loved dearly.He takes the blame for his own family in an incident against a Roman governor that was nothing more than an accident,and is forced into slavery by that former friend.Somehow he perseveres,ultimately becoming an adopted son of the consul from the very ship on which he was enslaved,and sets out to find his family,as well as the friend who betrayed them.I have always admired those who take the time,money and effort to bring bible stories,or stories based on the bible to life on the big screen,and William Wyler did an outstanding job with Ben-Hur,as did Charlton Heston and everyone else involved.With it's 11 Academy Awards,it's obvious that Hollywood very smartly thought so as well.Let me not close without mentioning the still talked about chariot race,which is often called the best action sequence in cinema history.I haven't seen every action sequence ever filmed,but it is indeed hard to believe anyone can top that.Excellent film.

Guided by the reviews when the film was released, I deliberately and carefully avoided seeing it in a theater. Now, I'm sorry. The movie is not nearly so bad as the general public was led to believe and is, in fact, quite effective and even, in parts, moving. Although these are not qualities one either expects (or even wants in a picture with comic book origins), they are also scarcely to be considered debilitating to the overall effectiveness of the project.Much of the power of the film comes from the performances of two old pros, Nick Nolte (playing himself, before rehab) and Sam Elliott (playing himself). These old rhinos snort up all the air in every frame in which they appear. No one else can touch them, particularly not Eric Bana, whose profound rages come across as temper tantrums until the special effects kick in and he is wholly computer generated. The "monster" gives a particularly fine performance and his programmers are to be commended.It is, on the whole, a very satisfying movie. And a badly underrated one.

There are a few wonderful courtroom dramas out there, Anatomy of a Murder, To Kill a Mockingbird and Witness for the Prosecution immediately springing to mind. 12 Angry Men is so brilliant, it could very well be the definitive courtroom drama on film. Sidney Lumet's direction is masterly, and although the action takes place on one set(an actual New York drawing room) there are a huge variety of innovative camera angles and visual set-ups. The screenplay is sophisticated and smart, and the story is compelling and intelligent. The film is also brilliantly made, and the acting is superb. Henry Fonda especially dominates the film, with an integrity that makes his character so wonderful, but the other actors are wonderful as well, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, John Fiedler, Lee J Cobb, Rudy Bond et al. are all impeccable support to Fonda. Overall, brilliant courtroom drama. 10/10 Bethany Cox

The movie is wonderful. It is exceeded all my expectations. By far is the best movie I've seen lately. Ben Affleck was exceeded himself again. His evolution as a director is a clearly an ascending one. The suspense reached maximum levels especially in the last half hour of the movie. It's a film in which Ben Affleck makes a remarkable role of a unadulterated agent in the period of a full political crisis. I can say that during the movie I felt like I am in the times of those years. It's easy to make a thriller with running or shooting activities, but it is damn difficult to convey suspense and keep the audience stuck to the seats. A must see movie!

This is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. A tired, lazy procession of clichés which lacks even a fraction of the flair or imagination of any of its predecessors. What Bruce Willis was thinking when he signed up for this God only knows; next time an A-list action movie star announces that he only signed up to revive a well-worn franchise "because the script was right", you should go ahead and assume they got the word "script" confused with the word "money". I just wish for once they would be honest about it and save everybody's time.The film itself is merely a succession of highly improbable action set pieces joined together by clunky expositional dialogue and interrupted by moments of abject boredom. The sequence where Bruce engages in hand-to-hand combat with a fighter jet (yes, really) is just plain ludicrous. Maggie Q's henchwoman(she's Asian, so of course she is an expert martial artist) must have been a terminator, it's the only way to explain why she took so long to die. Timothy Olyphant's villain must rank as the dullest screen villain in living memory; he was given literally NOTHING interesting to say or do. Oh, wait, I think he kicked a chair once. He was angry, you see. Not as angry as I was at the thought that the two hours of my life I wasted watching this drivel are now lost forever. And if I see one more pretty estranged daughter in peril/daddy's coming to save the day/I love you daddy subplot I will puke. Can whoever thinks this is an interesting dramatic device please just STOP ALREADY.In summary, if I wanted to spend two hours watching things get smashed up I'd visit my local junkyard on crushing day. Everyone involved in this limp excuse for a movie should hang their heads in shame.

Hard to stomach how bad of an American car ad this flick really is. You don't see any Asian cars - the dominant car in today's world. This movie is a glossy finish on a bankrupt American auto industry (with the exception of GM asia) which will also bankrupt the Hollywood industry (in the future) if the plots don't get more international and new age.This movie is designed for kids under 7. I think even an 8 year old might be bored by the cliché homor. I'm a big fan of all the previous Pixar works - especially Incredibles. The humanist content in "cars" makes the film worthy enough to watch because kids (and adults) need to be reminded of the morals we are presented with in "cars". One more criticism. We needed some humor in this flick. I didn't even get 3 chuckles out of it.

Although the animation was spectacular, the story line lost a lot in Dreamworks' interpretation. The development of relations between Moses and Rameses was a welcome improvement, but overall the plot was inferior to the original "Ten Commandments." Not only did "The Prince of Egypt" offer a mediocre plot, but children's appeal was also lagging far below the standards set by Disney. The animation is really the only good reason to see this movie.

Finally a movie that shows true love, in a fabolous way! I can understand that people who doesn't like/understand musik find this movie not so good. I know musik, and I completely adored it! I know about theatre too and this didn't make it worse either. This is a film different from most other. It made me both cry and laugh out loud, which not many films these days can do.The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love, and be loved in return! So true!

Silver Linings Playbook Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Bipolar OCDFinally a movie that touches on what mental illness such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Bi-polar, and OCD looks and feels like.Last week I attended a presentation by NAMI Stand Up Against Stigma is the National Alliance for Mental Illness statement for May Mental Health Awareness Month. The first day Silver Lining came out was I think the same day. I really wasn't sure what the movie was about but as I watched it, I was overwhelmed with emotion as I yelled and cried out FINALLY a movie to help us with Mental Illness be understood and hopefully accepted back into society without prejudice. Then on Saturday, I received my NAMI magazine and they have a full article about the movie. Wow someone is reaching out to me to push forward with my book because it is very timely and further illustrates what it is like to have PTSD, Conversion and Somatization disorders. In Silver Linings Playbook: Movie Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZLKfYQ_WyoPat Solatano- a man with Bi-polar and PTSD. The Movie illustrates:•The challenges of coming home after a hospital stay. •How people in the small town react to him with prejudice and are terrified of him because they know what he did. •Behaviors that are routine and comforting to Pat but are abnormal to others; example, wears a garbage bag while running because he sweats. •How up and down emotions are high and lows, etc •Shows how Pat's hearing is affected when he hears a song that isn't playing because of the trauma he experienced with his wife. •Others with mental illness accept each other and can be the biggest help to overcome challenges. Society Non - Acceptance = Mental Illness StigmaPeer to Peer Support = Acceptance, Encouragement, True FriendshipMy book is very timely because I feel it gives readers another image of mental illness and what it means: Flashbacks in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Surviving the Flood does this very thing by describing in detail what it is like to have distressing flashbacks, body memories, sensitivity to sound, smell, touch, and leaving reality to go to the past as triggers arise in everyday tasks and environment. Also, how upsetting it is for a patient to have to accept medications when it is their only choice to control their diagnoses. It also illustrates in detail what therapy looks and feels like, as the little girl switches ego-states, while going through the process of healing. It also shows the transition from a hospital stay to home life and the judgment of people who know that you were in the hospital. After reading this book, you will have a road map back to sanity while making new trusting relationships with people you chose to be a part of your healing journey.Anyone affected by mental illness will be able utilize the steps in this book to assist loved ones in finding the path to their unique healing journey. You will have gone through the entire healing process so if you experience a relapse or regression you will recover quickly reinforcing that you have control of your mental illness.Leslie Raddatz

I watched Romeo and Juliet today and to me it was a good movie. It was exciting and full of action. To me, the actor that played marcutio was really funny and made the movie interesting. Romeo is very attractive and makes the movie better. It was tragic when the two killed themselves over each other. It became a sad movie when that happened, and i wish that the movie could've had a happy ending. It was an overall good movie. I enjoyed it. i hope that we can watch more movies like this. The movie was good in some parts but i didn't like the part where the man hit juliet in her face. And i did like the fact that the movie was set in a modern time but i didn't like the way that they still talked in the old fashion way and i also didn't like the fact that they used guns instead of swords.

Disney-Pixar's Up was possibly the best kid's movie I have seen in a long while. Since... Wall-E. I went to this movie thinking, "This story/concept is stupid... but it IS Pixar." And let me say... they never seem to disappoint me.The story is what makes me think this is Pixar's best movie to date. Even better then Toy Story and Finding Nemo, which are my favorite films among Pixar. The story in this movie was definitely the best in any Pixar film. Touching, heart warming, and adorable.I have seen this movie twice now and I loved this film. If you love old school Disney and if you love Pixar AT ALL, you must see this film. The second time, was just as good as the first. Great work Pixar.9/10

The Incredible Hulk marks the second transition to the big screen in the span of a month for two of Marvel Comics' stable of superheroes. Hot on the heels of the critically lauded and box office bonanza that was Iron Man, The Hulk tries to catch lightning in a bottle twice in a row, without success.Sure it's racking up impressive numbers at Rotten Tomatoes, but that's largely due to the gargantuan action sequences that dot this otherwise brain dead movie.In a clear example of a talented actor in it for nothing more than the paycheck (and let's not forgot those enticing royalty residuals) Edward Norton pretty much walks through his role as Bruce Banner, the scientist/victim of an experiment with gamma radiation gone awry who finds himself morphing into the giant green monster every time his blood pressure escalates or he feels pain.The plain fact of the matter is that the movie suffers from an overabundance of lousy CGI. I want to cut French director Louis Leterrier (Transporter 2, Danny the Dog) some slack here, after all without resorting to CGI the only way to bring the Hulk to the screen would be to spray tan Lou Ferrigno green once again and slap him in a silly wig (Ferrigno makes a cameo as a pizza-loving security guard in one of the movie's better moments). However, whereas Iron Man's effects were impressive, The Hulk's look chintzy, almost cartoonish. You can never overlook the fact that what you're watching is computer generated.And while I'm playing the comparison game, whereas Iron Man, through both a smart script and the deft utilization of Robert Downey Jr.'s acting talents, created characters and a story with depth, the Hulk never manages to create a similarly engrossing universe. Even Tim Roth, who does his best to chew up the scenery (both literally and figuratively) as Emil Blonsky, the SAS agent-turned-Abomination, ends up serving as little more than a placeholder for yet more crappy CGI.Am I being too hard on the green giant? Maybe, but when it comes to muscle-bound cinematic simpletons, I can't help think of Mongo from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles when he uttered that hysterically philosophical line "Mongo merely pawn in game of life." Yes Mongo, you are, and so is The Hulk, whose creators only aim is to milk theater goers of their ticket cash and deliver second-rate CGI filled crap in return.

I take a fresh look at every movie , I don't compare one to the other. So looking at Jennifer's Body I must say I enjoyed it! Megan Fox entertained me ,she was sexy in a evil kind a way. She acted just like so many teenage girls would and actually do!!!!! I did not come in expecting more then what I got. Megan is sexy and display's it well. No need to criticize her for it. And really I don't care if she can act she looks great on screen. Just look at Richard Gere , Brad Pitt and of course Tom Cruise there first movies were awful when it came to acting. But they looked great to the girls out there. What I am trying to say is give the girl a break... she looks fantastic.

The superhero model gets a family-friendly animated application in "Big Hero 6," the long-assumed byproduct of the Disney-Marvel partnership come to fruition. Not that these young children weren't already seeing Marvel's live-action heroes, but this way Disney- Marvel can hook them on superhero tropes at an even younger age.Older kids and adults, however, might also find the world of San Fransokyo engaging and charming. The story follows boy genius Hiro (Ryan Potter), who is wasting his potential in the underground robot-fighting scene until his brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) takes him to his high-tech university and introduces him to his nerdy-but- cool friends and professor. Inspired, Hiro creates an amazing invention to gain admittance to the school, but when it's stolen and used for evil, Hiro sets out with his brother's healthcare robot, Baymax (Scott Adsit), looking for answers.Writers Robert L. Baird and Daniel Gerson ("Monsters University") and Jordan Roberts roll most of the superhero origin story conventions into their reimagining of this team of lesser-known Marvel characters. Hiro is the main character who has suffered great trauma in his formative years (Batman, Spider-Man) who is a technological genius capable of building awesome robots (Iron Man … and also Batman and Spider-Man). So the movie doesn't tackle anything new for this genre, but it does package themes of loss, friendship, family and heroism into a form that children can digest.The objective is not all that different from Disney and Pixar's 2004 collaboration "The Incredibles," but the difference is "Big Hero 6" feels much more modern and "The Incredibles" more "classical" as far as superhero movies go. Directors Don Hall (2011 "Winnie the Pooh") and Chris Williams ("Bolt") create a vibrant hybrid city in San Fransokyo and let nothing hold back the imagination. Their story is steeped in the tech-driven superhero world, and even though completely implausible, doesn't feature characters with special biological abilities (like "The Incredibles"), only smart characters that are driven and motivated (who have really good access to tech). The soul of "Big Hero 6," however, is Baymax, the tubby, inflatable robot who Hiro turns into a heroic fighting machine. With his prime directive being to care for those who are injured or unwell, Baymax has acute insight into Hiro's fluctuating feelings (in fact there's a running puberty joke in the film). He's also an unlikely hero in that he's a big softie who doesn't want to harm anyone. He's the best source of comic relief in the film too, especially compared with T.J. Miller's Fred, who is sort of the obnoxious, weird friend. To the script's credit, however, Fred has all the lines that wink to the adults in the audience about how closely this story adheres to the comic book movie formula."Big Hero 6" is a fun superhero adventure with a strong moral story arc. Although it throws some curveballs in terms of plot and emotions, nothing about it is all that surprising or original; it's a well-executed use of a reliable formula.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

DM2 is definitely a competitive movie to its prequel,you may not find the stealing of moon this time though. Except the plot,sequel is way better than its prequel especially in terms of comedy. Steve Carell has outdone himself really. There is more importance to Elsie Kate Fisher(Agnes) here as the directors know well what we'd like to see. I bet you cannot find any other animation films this much funnier. Both the directors are the smartest ever i've seen. Budget is low as movie already soars in Box office. They knew exactly what to do to make the Box office come their way. Yep,I am talking about the minions. When I watched the prequel I never thought they were making a sequel giving more value to minions. But they found a way. That was spot on! What I still wonder is whatever they tried to give us a comedy,it never failed anytime. That is never easy. Great stuff! May be here, we need Tom Hanks' voice to get a lot of votes for this wonderful movie. Come on! All go see this. Don't waste your life by being miss this funniest flick. When it comes to music, Happy song is just amazing. Its safe to say that background music is brilliant as always. Minions at its best during the climax. Final words: This is surely one of the greatest animation movies of the century. Just spend your bucks to encourage both the directors to make another splendid movie. Of course,we can anticipate more from them as Sandra Bullock (Richest Paid Actress) is pulled for their next one.

I hardly define myself as a fan of the Night of the Museum Series, but what I will say is that I saw the second one and had a good time even though I totally forgot it and I have seen the first one a couple of times and find it pretty entertaining even if nothing remarkable. So what I was expecting was to have some cheap laughs, a couple of good ones and have a some 90 minutes of fun without expecting anything special. Unfortunately I came out disappointed.There really isn't any grade that describes this movie better than a 4. There is no reason to give it a lower one, because the movie has nothing to get angry about, nothing that was abnormally weak, but at the same time the movie did nothing more than a couple of "ha"s. Yet the reason it gets half a grade more for me is the cameo inserted into the fourth act. I don't want to spoil it, but up to that point I was mostly bored and man when that kicked in I laughed out loud for five minutes straight, because not only it is a good handled cameo, it also goes on for some time and spawns genuine good comedy.There isn't really much to go in depth about, was I bored out of my mind and so angry I wanted to leave? No, but at the same time I was bored for many moments. This movie is so mediocre and unremarkable it really isn't in anyway interesting to go into any details. Good moments. Bad Moments. Lots of in the middle. Just one great.Is it fine for a family to go and watch at the theater? Sure. Is it anything a film fan would think of for more than twenty seconds? No.

Eclipse continues off with Victoria's (Bryce Dallas Howard) plan to avenge her dead vampire lover James (Cam Gigandet) by slowly creating an army of vampires, including one Forks native whom she later deceives just to have her plan put into works. After Bella's (Kristen Stewart) and Edward's (Robert Pattinson) near-death experiences in the previous instalment, the two leading characters mended and promised never to leave each other again. Edward was especially protective of Bella ever since news of newborn vampires surfaced and Victoria hot on their tail. Eventually, the Cullen clan and the werewolves had to forget their differences for a while in order to work together to fight off the ever-raising number of Victoria's army and protect Bella. The movie concludes with Bella's protectors killing Victoria and Victoria's army, but not without the Volturi almost interfering the fight.Eclipse, in my opinion, has a much darker theme compared to the first two movies. David Slade, who specializes in sci-fi/thriller movies, is best-fitted for this instalment. He is able to show well in the big screen the highlights of this romantic-sci-fi novel. The cinematography is very much appropriate for the storyline. Visual and sound effects are close to reality, though they aren't as superb as those in Avatar or in any high-budgeted sci-fi movies. The setting brings about the natural side of the characters. One thing I find a bit disappointing is Stewart's portrayal of Bella. She lacks emotions in expressing Bella's thoughts, which makes her monotonous. Well, I still have the same comments about Stewart's acting ever since the release of the first movie saga. Among all the cast members, I find Taylor Lautner's character, Jacob, the most moving maybe because he is able to really give life to the character with his facial expressions and body language.The Twilight Saga's storyline is really not that unusual, for it has been patterned with ancient legends about vampires and werewolves. One movie I could think of that has, somehow, the same plot—that is vampires and werewolves fighting—is Van Helsing (2004).

SHALLOW HALL is a completely entertaining, heart-warming film that deals with some very sensitive issues very well. I think it's by far, the most mature film to date from the brothers Farrelly. They were almost able to keep all their gross out humor in check. Almost.Jack Black is good, but he's been a lot better in other films. He seems to have been kept in check. Normally Black's off the wall, but here, he's very refined. Almost tame. Why hire Black and not let him loose ala HIGH FIDELITY or ORANGE COUNTY?I think the main reason this film was not a major hit was Jason Alexander. The former "SEINFELD" star was so horrifically bad, it brought the quality level of the film down. It appears every time he's on screen that he's trying. And desperatly so. I wish Alexander would show the same kind of restraint and dignity Jerry Seinfled does. Since "SEINFELD" ended, Alexander has basically whored himself out to every TV show, movie or TV commercial he can get his hands on. Was that really him on FX's "Son of the Beach"?All in all, Paltrow, the story and the directors make SHALLOW HALL a surprisingly touching and funny film.

I am a fan of Twilight books, for I admire Stephenie's writing style, and as for the movies, I used to consider them a nice addition to the books, since none of them really reflected the book plot and details - that is, until Breaking Dawn.Ms Rosenberg must be praised first of all for sticking to the book and finding a perfect balance between an exact reproduction of the book and creating a story which would be amusing to look at. Can't but add a point my friend expressed - if this is your first Twilight movie, you will hardly get the point - although why one would watch BD without the previous movies I can't imagine.The cast performs on the highest level. Kristen Stewart portrays all confused emotions Bella experiences in a very believable way, and the scenes in which she has to cry are so touching you may also get upset. Robert Pattinson also does a great job - with his face all happy and amused in the first half of the movie, and then when he learns about the baby, it turns into a mask till he hears the baby's thoughts. Some consider it lack of acting, but I believe that's the way Stephenie imagined a vampire "in shock". Taylor Lautner with his brand-new stubble looks more mature which is very suitable for the situation. The supporting cast, not to mention every single person, can also be commended.As for the characters, I must mention this movie changed my opinion on Jacob. I know it's not how he was designed, but he used to irritate me a lot with all his first-do-then-think pranks. Here, however, we get a much closer look at his personality. He still makes mistakes, but he also arrives at right conclusions, makes important decisions and in general tries to behave very wisely. The character of Leah is developed extremely well. We see her struggle as she tries to fight her inherent hatred for the Cullens for the sake of Seth, and eventually we see her overcome it during the fight between the Cullens and the werewolves - she pushes another wolf off Alice.The most memorable scenes for me were: "toasts" at the wedding; Bella preparing for the first night with Edward (Kristen illustrated the nervousness in such a humorous and touching way, and the soundtrack was incredible); then of course the lovemaking (Pattinson said it was little for him, but well, if they showed more, the movie would be NC-17, definitely); Jake "overpowering" Sam and refusing to obey his orders - it was done in such a simple and yet genius way; the fight between the Cullens and the werewolves; Jake imprinting on Renesmee (nicely done, with flashbacks, flash-forwards and amazing editing) and Bella turning into a vampire - it was fascinating how her body was being healed by the venom, and the last thing we get to see on the screen is her pale face with crimson eyes opening. Tip 1: don't miss a chance to watch it on the big screen - some scenes were just meant for that. Tip 2: if you aren't a native-speaker of English but your English is good enough, watch the original. I've already watched two translated versions and there was a number of ridiculous mistakes in the translation.

Right, so with over a thousand comments (or reviews; whichever way you want to put it) why should you read this one if you chanced upon this? Well coz' this is about as honest as it can get from a pure movie-lover.If you want to really find out about the guy (John Nash) on whom this movie is based on, then you're better off reading about him on Wikipedia or watching a documentary called "A Brilliant Madness". While this movie appears to be a biopic on the genius-troubled-mathematician John, it actually portrays a lot of factual errors. So flawed as it may be it does come good in showing the spirit of the guy in discussion which no one dares question.I actually didn't enjoy the movie completely mainly because I saw through the script some time back even though I didn't know anything about the movie before watching it. I guess when you have seen quite a lot of movies on similar themes such as Fightclub, The Machinist... where the central character imagines things and people that are not, it's not hard for you to "predict" what's gonna happen. But then as the movie neared it's end I realized the movie is not so much of a puzzle as it is about the life of a brilliant mathematician told through a movie. So I started appreciating the movie at the end and it's suffice to say that I wasn't totally disappointed.The movie is best enjoyed without any strings attached; cos' the movie actually takes a lotta liberties with the original book it was based on. But the biggest flaw in my view has to be Russel Crowe who doesn't seem to fit the role he'd been given. I'd rather see him play roles like The Gladiator and these kind of roles should be reserved for more versatile actors like Johnny Depp. All in all a 7/10 seems good enough for this one.

Today as I watched Tombstone again I said to myself, this is a good western, but I also said there were a lot of lousy performances especially from Dana Wheeler-Nicholson, and Stephen Lang in a thankless role.I keep hearing the comparisons between Wyatt Earp and Tombstone and they are stupid, first of all Tombstone was in the theater while Wyatt Earp was still in production and the director of Wyatt Earp made a movie with more depth and straight language to not offend the dim minded movie goers.Tombstone from Wyatt Earps mouth has language flashes in Metaphor and attitude, and the movie doesn't seem thrown together, but it looses speed at the 1hr 45 min point Hardly a stinker, but there are quite a lot of hammy performances from Val Kilmer and Michael Biehn.Watch this one on cable or rent, but don't buy (*1/2)out of (****)

Dennis Feldman's 'Species' is a severely underrated science fiction film from the 90s. The film touches on many themes, including the meaning of life, human desires, specifically procreation, human interaction, kindness/empathy, selfishness, fear, manipulation, intuition, following orders. It does so in a way that is mostly sublime enough that it comes across as genuine. For example there is a fairly believable romance buried in there underneath layers of alien slime. The dialog is mostly well written and to the point, the actors are great and there's lots of attention to detail. Combine that with some great and grotesque visuals, courtesy of the late Hans Ruedi Giger and some Cronenbergian body horror and you're in for a fascinating ride through Los Angeles.The dialog doesn't always work, like when they're trying to track her down and are quickly jumping to conclusions about things that the audience already knows. Scenes vary in quality, some feel a bit rushed. While the effects are mostly excellent there are some subpar ones, too.Overall I highly recommend it if you can get something out of sci-fi horror.

The movie was totally fun and superb. Amongst the bees, Barry was totally cute and funny. The factory and the city inside the hive, was totally beautiful and cool. When, the pollen jocks are taking nectar from the flowers, that scene is totally cool and awesome. Even, the last scene was totally awesome, cool and funny. Even, the other bees were also cute but not like Barry. Even, the town outside the hive was also beautiful and colorful. Whenever, Barry is flying outside that scenes are totally thrilling because we think Barry will be dead and the flying of the bees are very beautiful and they are cool. When, Barry is fighting with a man by using his sting and the man uses a pin, that scene is totally awesome and cool. When, Ken wants to kill Barry, that time he uses flames and books to kill Barry, that scene was cool. When, Barry is talking to Vanessa for the fast time in the kitchen, that scene was funny. When, Barry becomes a big man and a lawyer that scenes are very funny and he becomes a pollen jock that is cool and superb. I should really appreciate the creators of "Bee Movie".

Overall, taken at face value, Wonder Woman is better than the average superhero film on a few levels.This was refreshing to watch simply because nothing in it felt like they were trying too hard. The movie flowed smoothly from start to finish, and the ending was (if over-dramatic) definitely the pay-off you were waiting for.It's a fun popcorn flick that has the ability to make any little girl watching it feel empowered.

starring Michael Caine. Muppet Performers: Jerry Nelson as Robin the frog, Ghost of Christmas Present, Statler, Lew Zealand Floyd Pepper and others. Dave Goelz as Gonzo, Waldorf, Dr.Bunsen Hunnydew and others. Steve Whitemire as Kermit, Rizzo the Rat, Bean Bunny, Beaker and others.Frank Oz as Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Sam the Eagle and Animal.The film starts off in a sad note...In memory of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt...then we get to the cheer. Ebeneezer Scrooge(Caine) is a mean old man, where the only nice thing he'll do is give Bob Cratchit(Kermit the Frog) Christmas day off. On Christmas Eve Ebeneezer sees his dead business partners, Bob and Jacob Marley(Waldorf and Statler) and then is visited by three ghosts. It's a great family comedy, and a great movie too. Muppet fans may have a problem that Fozzie Bear only has a small role as Fozziwigs, but it's a good role. Brian Henson directs this movie wonderfully, and even though all the muppets don't have actual roles, he gives them nice cameos. Dr.Teeth and the electric Mayhem show up as Fozziwigs band, with Animal on the triangle. Lew Zealand shows up as a fish salesman. Even Jim's favorite puppet Rowlf shows up for a small, but nice cameo where he joyfully plays the piano. I recommend it, but it is boring. It's too slow for small kids and for adults. But warning, may be too scary for little kids at times, and also may make children sad when Tiny Tim(Robin the Frog, excellently voiced by Jerry Nelson) bites the dust in the future. Good, but too slow and too human filled.my rating-C. rated G. 84 mins.

at first i thought it would Be just another sci movie but oh my god everything about it is amazing it makes you think about many things &the acting is super the chemistry is great it's not about aliens it's all about deep morals !!! go see that movie you'll learn from it & enjoy at the same time

ebert and roeper said they couldn't understand what the movie was trying to criticize in our own society which i thought was pretty obvious. the patriot act takes away many of our rights "for our own protection"-- in the movie they terrorized society with a virus which they used to scare the ppl into submission. bush and his cabinet listening in on ppls conversations and ordering online search engines to hand over our online searches. also, even the news on TV in the movie was similar to the news we get in our homes every night: frightening. we get plenty of "tune in tonight to see violence, sex, or both" all the time. they do it to get ratings but it creates a terrified society. they did that with 911 and the terrorism, scare the ppl into submission. take advantage of their vulnerability.

I watched this on DVD this evening, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time seeing it in the theater. A lot of people have bombed on it, and now I understand why.Setting aside the special effects (which were great, I admit,) we must turn to the special defects, primarily the ocean of trite, sentimental mush. Parents are separated, dad's distant because he's busy with his career, wifey has found a new guy, the kids are as distant to their birth dad as he is to his family (in order to force this point down our throats, the son routinely calls dad by his first name, just so we won't imagine they're close or anything.).Then things start to fall apart worldwide. There is a lovable radio-talk nutcase who is, of course, right about everything that's about to happen; the family (including dad 2, who possesses invaluable skills) are swept-up in these terrifying events, and by the end humanity is kind of sort of saved, dad 2 is nobly sacrificed to open the role of paterfamilias to the birth dad, and the family unit is back together, all huggy-wuggy and ready to embark on the bold new adventure ahead!Of course we have the obligatory "what makes us human we can't leave all those people to die" speech and a scientist involved in a secondary romance; we also get the seemingly heartless politician who, in my opinion, is really the voice of common sense.I hate this film, and I won't be watching it again. Once more, just to be clear: i'm glad as hell I didn't see this in the theater. As bad as the story is, I don't think even big-screen treatment would have helped.**** for the special effects. And that's all.

I have only just gotten round to watching this movie. I have never read a Le Carre book and the only things I have seen were The Spy Who came in from the Cold (I was too young to follow and understand it!) and The Night Manager which was brilliant. So what did I think of it? It is all in the title of my review. I did feel all of those emotions. Boring - only the first few minutes. It engrossed me for most of the movie and puzzled me too. All round I found it excellent.It took it's time to tell the story and gave very little away. The actors all gave good value and Gary Oldman as the main character was good but underplayed incredibly. I enjoyed Tom Hardy's contribution and Benedict Cumberbatch was as good as he always is. I liked the way it did not spoon feed the viewer with information but allowed the plot to unfold slowly but surely. A pity Kathy Burke was not in it more as she is an incredible actress. Not a film for people who like action movies, it is much more cerebral than that.

In a NYC courtroom, a first degree murder case against a poor 18 year old boy with a troubled history has just rested. The 12 men of the jury are sent to decide the seemingly open and shut case. They hold a vote and it's 11-1 guilty. Henry Fonda is the only not-guilty vote. He's not sure and wants to spend time discussing the case.This is the classic stage play. I say this meaning it's a bunch of characters in a room. The characters don't even have names. Lee J. Cobb and Jack Warden have the flashiest roles. Henry Fonda is essentially the lead as the central heroic role. He has the nobility. The roles are all filled with first rate character actors. This is an actor's movie. The only drawback is the cinematic potential. In the end, it is 12 men around a table in a room. The visual opportunities are limited. Despite that, the debate interplay is engrossing and the movie is satisfying.

Crash is one of my traumatic experiences in cinema. It reminds me of the most wasted money i ever spent.I will not stand on technical issues such us shooting, directing, acting etc. because they represent the smallest part of the movie's impression.The ethical principals are devastated, and the Godgiven gift of life is wasted through the way of living that the couple adopts. They are at their most productive age, being financially ok, and the only thing that concerns them is how they will satisfy their sexual appetite in a dreadful and most immoral way.

This movie started out slow but became action-packed before the 30-minute mark. The characters are great and the scenes are amazing. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are bank robbers on the run after robbing multiple trains. They end up being followed by the best of the business and find themselves unable to outrun them. The chase will have you on the edge of your seat.

I don't know what the Academy was thinking. Best Actor? Best Supporting Actress Nomination? Best Movie Nomination? Blah!! Other movies must have been much worse because the directing of this movie to intertwine past and present was horrendous. Casey Affleck was in mourning the whole film which brought the movie down to un-watchable. Michelle Williams didn't appear enough in the movie to be nominated and it was dark, grey and sullen throughout the movie. I can't get my 2 hours back ever again. :-( If you want a good nap this is the movie for you.

I should have known better. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, good remake. Halloween, decent remake. Friday the 13 the, mind numbingly awful, and that's sad because it had potential. This is the first time I have been frustrated enough to post a review of a film (and I've watched a lot of bad films), in hopes that a lover of the genre and franchise will not end up as dismayed as I. First of all, I understand that a certain amount of T&A is commonplace in most slasher movies, I've been a fan for 30 years; however, the amount of sex and attempted humor simply slow down and hinder this film. It's like they thought, whoops it's been awhile I guess we should kill someone real quick so we can get back to the bongs and boobs, but don't bother making it very original. And in the end, you feel like the Nispel realized he only had 15 minutes left in the film, and so they should rush to actually address the bad guy. Intersperse the sex with lame humor, and even worse dialogue, and you get a mixture of one of the new National Lampoon's movies, and a boring horror movie. As for Jared Padalecki, I'm surprised because I've watched scarier, better episodes of Supernatural. Maybe I'm just getting older, but "Friday the 13th" and "Underworld:Rise of the Lycans" should have gone straight to video. I could have done better. Others did, and with way less money.

With American Beauty the audience has been ushered into a new age of film. Perhaps now, for the first time since the 1940's, does hollywood realize the power of intelligent films. The story of American Beauty is pertinant to our times, the film is stylishly written, directed and acted. It truly is a must-see film, if not the must-see film of this year.

I am a fan of the new wave of 3D films that are getting released now a days, and this is honestly why I didn't walk out of Coraline. The first 2/3rds of this film are absolutely dreadful, nothing happens, the story goes from one disjointed vignette to another. All of the characters are annoying, absolutely no one you could cheer for in the bunch.Then, it becomes the most horrifying film I've seen since the Excorsist. I mean truly disturbing, a couple of weeks ago I saw My Bloody Valentine in 3D. I think a small kid, 10 or 11 years old, has a better chance of watching that one and not have night mares. I honestly may have nightmares after watching this thing. Which is why I give it a 5, if the last third had been like the first two thirds I'd be giving it a 2, and 1.5 of that would be for the 3D.The only film to come close to being as disturbing as this one in the past 30 years is Hostle, but believe me, this one is worse.So, to sum up, boring as hell, cool 3D, deeply disturbing.

Even before "Patch Adams" I was sick of the syrupy and sappy formula Robin Williams films about some cheerful or good person who redeems others despite an Evil Establishment by his nature, or some such rot. "Patch Adams" was almost sickening, but the person I was with wanted to see it. Now we have a film that is even worse. Besides the cornball cloying stuff, this movie is even sad and morose. Williams the robot watches the families he works for grow old and die right before his artificial eyes! I assume the film was meant as a depressing parable on human mortality. I've had a root canal. Had it in July. I literally would rather go through that again than sit through another Williams movie. Thumbs way down!

Honestly, people, I did not expect anything special from this movie, and I don't think anyone of you did, but what i didn't expect was that it was going to be as awful as it was. I would go for sh*t, but then again, I don't want sh*t to feel offended. Yes, the cast wasn't anything special, and honestly, I think that the girls who had one shot to show their boobs did a better job in front of the camera than most of the actors, but once again, all of you must have been expecting that already. Not even Chrisopher Lloyd saves the movie! What I have against this movie, and the main reason I chose to write this review, is because of it's utter stupidity, which sinks into the pile of garbage the crew confused for a script. Or it might have been the awfully crap-looking 3D-CG piranhas. Besides, if you look back on the previous piranha movies, you'll notice that this is a remake of a remake. I thought that at least the piranhas where going to look good, but oh boy, I was completely wrong. Everything about this movie Sucks. and I am not going to pinpoint all of the CGI crap, all of the unnecessary floating eves and heads, and everything else having to do with ¨special¨ effects, what i am going to chomp on is the humongously horrible script. I mean, I can take the abuse of 3d in this movie. ie.: *The 3D flying soda *The 3D-slow motion vomit *the 3D bob cutting chord *3D bits and pieces of piranhas getting chopped by a motor boat. *I can even take the 3D penis thrown at my face, eaten by a piranha, and once again regurgitated at my face! But what i can't take is:* Ving Rhames shooting piranhas in the air. There's two thing to that: the fact that he is actually shooting all of them, and the fact that they are for some reason jumping in the air. These are not dolphins, they're piranhas, they don't jump out of the water!* The huge explosion which kills all the piranhas clean off, but doesn't kill the guys right next to the fish.* All those stupid little things, including:-The "coincidential adequately positioned boats" the sheriff mother jumps on until she gets to hers.And there's s much more, but do I really have to keep going, because it seems enough to me just with what's on the top of my head right now. Anyways, if you're planning on watching a movie, even if this is the only one left for you to watch, DON'T WATCH THIS ONE! Under no circumstances expose yourself to this so-bad-it's-AWFUL piece of crap. In fact, I've heard it's radioactive, and your penis shrinks because of watching it. And if that didn't convince you, then go watch it, but I hope you die after watching it, not because you didn't follow my advice, but because after being exposed to this sh*t, you're better off dead, believe me. Alexandre Aja should've stayed with The Hills Have Eyes.

I wanted to like this movie, but the male lead just was NOT likeable. Also, the female lead was under NO obligation to disclose her identity to the hotel manager. She never led him on or implied anything and he flipped out on her and was an absolute jerk to her. I am not sure why the fiance's behavior was so bad she had to call off their wedding, and run into the arms of the man who thought he had every right to control and verbally abuse a woman he barely knew.Up until the ending, I would have given it a 5 (low score for bad casting), but watching a movie try to turn being an @$$ to a woman into some sort of Christmas message only made me furious. It got a 2 only because I liked the rest of the cast.

I only give Bridge to Terabithia a nine because I don't think this movie will appeal to everybody. It has a happy end of sorts, but is far more downbeat than upbeat. The Bridge to Terabithia deals with heavy issues; death, responsibility, eternal consequences. If you as an adult take your children to see this, be prepared to spend some time talking with them afterward. This movie has more in common with Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows than with Chronicles of Narnia, but it's a tougher movie than either of the doggy movies.It is a very good movie, very well done. Many good nuances; the entire production crew deserves a lot of credit. The uncertainty of parenthood is portrayed especially well, the ease with which we make mistakes with our kids. Jesse's father treat him coldly until tragedy strikes.The marketing, the trailer and such, is very misleading and deserves a very low rating. Disney Studios needs a lesson about honesty.MadKaugh

I recently watched this movie again after I saw it a couple of years ago in the theater. It was exactly as I remembered it: a fun action-packed movie. Johnny Cage (played by Linden Ashby) is the most entertaining character in the movie. He delivers a couple of one-liners which will surely make you laugh. Christopher Lambert as Rayden was also a good casting choice. If you were a fan of the video game, I'm sure you'll love this movie. My rating: 8/10.

In 1946, after the War had ended, there was one movie that got the kind of buzz necessary to dominate the awards world in the United States. This film was that movie. I rented it because I saw the stacks of Oscars it received and it's placement on the AFI's list. And I had never heard of the movie until it popped up on my recommendations radar at Netflix.It's a surprisingly long film, clocking in at almost three hours, but I have to credit the filmmakers, as it really didn't seem that long as I was watching it. All in all, this film really just has classic Hollywood all over it, complete with classic Hollywood direction, acting, etc. From beginning it end, it's smoothly directed, capably acted and has a developed enough script that I didn't lose patience with it much.Having seen plenty of movies from this era, the one shocker to me (and probably to the audiences of the time) was the implication of divorce and marriagebreaking. Outside of that, the story is just a human drama about men returning from the war and the problems some of them encounter in readjusting. It's not a terribly complicated film and spends a lot of time with the three principle characters and following their lives, which intersect at many points. This allows the viewer to get connected.Still, in the end, I can't love the film and that's really no fault of the film. It's just a specific film made for a specific audience, which I don't fall under. While I understand the drama, it isn't as relevant to me. It's still solid enough throughout that I can recommend it, if you have the nearly three hours necessary to watch it. 8/10.

I wasn't overly fond of the original, so when I heard that this film was getting a remake I was unenthusiastic about it. However, seeing as its 31 days of horror I thought I'd use the opportunity to make this the first entry in my month of films. The film is directed by Niels Arden Oplev who made the Swedish Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which was excellent. So it was interesting to check out this film and see what Oplev would be able to bring into a film that was kind of eh to begin with.The film is about a group of young medical students who start experimenting with near death experiences, stopping their heart and reviving shortly after, in attempts to answer questions about the afterlife and what is seen in those brief moments. At first it seems that the experiences create positive experiences in memory and creativity but it turns out that something haunts the students. Its hard for them to separate reality from the horrifying images they say and they must find a way to pull through.I don't see Ellen Page in enough things these days so this was a rare treat. It was an odd assembly of cast but they all did fine. While the film doesn't offer a whole lot of originality, I felt like the film was interesting enough despite having some very poor writing at many times. The films resolution is stale and seems too easy. It actually divulges into becoming a bit of an unfocused mess. Once the film commits to becoming a full fledged horror it becomes derivative. The jump scares are quite predictable and the film loses a bit of the fun it made for itself earlier.Overall, this is a throwaway film that I don't think anyone will think twice about. Its a nice chance to see talent like Diego Luna and Ellen Page (and HOT Nina Dobrev). Kiefer Sutherland is in the film but its a role completely unrelated to that of the original. Its stupid because a lot of what the characters are able to do after they flatline makes no sense. A lot of this film is poorly written and makes your head scratch. Its pretty entertaining, at least I found it that way despite it being a horribly executed idea that was rehashed from the original.6/10

I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub."Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.

No, this is not an horrible movie and I did not disliked watching it but I absolute didn't seem to like it as much as most other people seem to do and in my opinion the movie is currently being way overrated.I'll give the movie that it was a bit of an unique one for its time. It actually has a pretty good premise, lots of action movies now days would be jealous off. However it doesn't really make this movie a fantastic or spectacular one to watch, though I'm taking it into account that this movie was from before the period that the action-genre got actually first fully developed. But by saying all this, you shouldn't think that this is an action packed movie with gun fights or anything but it's more a movie that takes an action type of approach with its style and story-telling, of its somewhat adventurous story, that gets brought very tense to the screen.I really had quite some problems with this movie. One is not even it's long running time of two and an half hours but more its set-up of its story and characters. Once you start thinking about it you should wonder of the first 30 minutes, or so, were truly needed for the movie or not. It's unnecessarily slow and it was mostly meant to introduce and set-up its character but they could had done this all a lot quicker really. And the characters aren't even that much good to begin with. Problem with them is that are some lying and cheating bums, who do everything for some money. I just could never fully like any of them, so therefore the movie already fell emotionally flat and became a distant one to watch.But yes, it's definitely true that the movie becomes a much better one to watch in its second half, when finally good and interesting things start to happen. They came up with some pretty good moments for the movie, that often work out real tense. They are being build-up well and executed surprisingly good and also original.But no matter how original the movie gets with some of its moments, the movie remains a very predictable one, or at least to me it was. I was not even surprised or taken away by its not-so-Hollywood-like ending. It got done a bit too obvious, in its build up toward it.Nevertheless this movie still remains a great and also unique achievement, from director Henri-Georges Clouzot. It's a French movie, in which a whole lot of different languages gets spoken by its characters. Besides French we have Italian, Spanish, English and some German, just to name a few languages that get spoken throughout this movie. It's simply a well directed and also good looking movie, aside from its settings that don't really seem to suit the movie its premise.The movie is supposedly set in an unnamed South-American country but the movie looks nothing like a South-American country at all. At first I even thought that the movie was being set in Marocco (also due to the many different languages being spoken in it) or some other northern African country. It's just one of those other little things that prevented me from truly getting in this movie and liking it as much as everybody else seems to do.It's a good movie, especially for its time but there was nothing in this movie that was surprising or truly grabbing me.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

So, I usually don't qualify my reviews, but this movie is sort of special, and the comments I've read are from all over the map so I feel I should give some idea of where I'm coming from too. I've been an playwrite, actor, and director for years, with work of mine have been doing both domestically and internationally, and having appeared in plays both amateur and professional and every level in between, including a professional opera and many a musical: whenever I watch anything, I approach it on three levels: artist, critic and audience. Also, I grew up seeing shows on Broadway, both mega-musicals and little indy plays in the Village, and while generally speaking my tastes lean more towards "arty and indy", I do have a broader pallet and it would be more accurate to say that my real interest is piqued by anything that is genuinely good at being what it is- which is one way of describing "Phantom of the Opera." Because yes, it's not as complec and intelligent as the work of Sondheim, or Kander and Ebb, but for what it sets out to be, an enthralling and absorbing Gothic romance (a genre that is rarely done well on stage, let alone as a musical), it achieves on every level: the score (which is soaring and crashing and large, just like the emotions of the characters who sing it), the design (ornate and overwhelming and grand guigol to the hilt), the story (which is totally ridiculous on some level, but since gothicism and romance are both genres which celebrate the extremes of our minds and imaginations, this is totally appropriate). "Phantom" is a brilliant example of art where the content and the style of the rendering of that content fit each other to a tea, and while it may not be YOUR cup of tea I sort of feel that anyone who thinks it's crap has basically missed the point or is just sour grapes because the thing is so damn popular and so damn good at being what it is (and lets face it, it's hard not to resent a success sometimes). Genius is often ridiculed, especially genius of an unusual nature or in a somewhat unconventional field (and Gothic romance, be it novel, film or musical, is looked down on in general, usually for the very qualities that make it interesting) and Webber's work is genius, because "Phantom" is, for all its faults, tightly written, a brilliant balance of camp, melodrama, satire and fairy tale, and while the style of music might not work for each listener, it effectively illuminates the story and conveys what is most important about the characters: their titantic (albeit, somewhat simple-minded) emotions, desires, fears and obsessions.*SPOILERS*The movie, in my opinion, takes what is best about the play and does it even better. Though some of my favorite bits from the stage show (the rehearsal of Don Jaun where the piano plays itself, Raoul's part in "Wondering Child") are gone, they have been dropped in favor of brilliant improvements, namely having the chandelier crash at the conclusion of the film (it really brings the whole thing full circle), and allowing more glimpses of Paris 1917, finally explaining why it is Raoul returns, what happens to the Phantom, etc. Other good bits that we see now but never saw onstage: an affectionate moment between Meg and Madame Giry, some history of the Phantom, a deeper sense of what Meg may know or not know about the Phantom's presence, the stalking of Josephe Bouquet, the life of the underclass of the opera house, the Hall of Mirrors from the book, etc. Also, the music has been beautifully re-orchestrated, and never sounded better. I'll take orchestra over canned synths, any day, thank you.The cinematography is beautiful and the "opera" moments are well done- complete with the cornball, almost intrusive dancing and vibrant but totally unrealistic sets and costumes that characterized "grand opera" at the time. The sense of constant claustrophobia back stage is great, and adds to that sense of what it was like to live and work in this tiny world where everyone is a performer and half your wardrobe comes from the costume department (did anyone else catch that moment where Christine takes her dress from the wardrobe?), adding to the central question at "Phantom's" core- what (who) is real, and what (who) is an illusion- and is real preferable to illusion, or vice-vera? The bleedingly bright colors and deep shadows of the movie help echo all of this- reminding us always, this story is not real, hero on white charger and all, but we don't want it to be: it's a legend, it's a fairy tale, it's a farce... it's a masquerade. It's, as the Auctioneer says, "a strange affair." "Phantom" told and acted realistically, totally wouldn't work, so don't ask it to, or judge it that way.The best thing about this movie is the performances, and the director has done a wonderful thing by moving AWAY from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, both of whom gave role defining performances, neither of which are any more "correct" than any other. The question isn't, are Butler and Rossum as good as their predecessors, but rather do their versions of the characters work, and the answer is: yes. Return to "Phantom" as a text, not as a show with a history, and you'll see that Christine is supposed to be dreamy, lost, emotionally unstable and young, just as Rossum plays and sings the role. Butler, with his harsher singing and deeper range, is much more believable as a madman who is sometimes pathetic and pitable, but still ultimately a deranged egomaniac who lives underground and makes wax statues of the woman he loves. The rest of the cast is equally good, with Minnie Driver giving a heroically hysterical performance, Jennifer Ellison combining strength and curiosity with innocence and a certain grounded quality (I've always believed the audience is ultimately supposed to identify with Meg, who is the only character who never panics and maintains a healthy sense of "reality) that contrasts nicely with Rossum's morbid dreaminess, and Patrick Wilson doing much more with Raoul than any of the actors I've seen on stage. I wish Simon Callow had had more to do, but such is life- at least he was there. Miranda Richardson continues to prove she can play anything, and conveying more with a look than most actresses can with a full script of dialogue. Her accent is totally brilliant: it sets her apart, makes her glamorous and mysterious, and at the same time, is another sly tongue in cheek reminder that what we are watching should only be believed to a point: it is, after all, just another version of beauty and the beast.

"Cape Fear" is an extraordinary example of directing. Martin Scorsese does all he knows about suspense and fear to make this film this good. The background sound, along with Robert De Niro's sick character make it agonizing to watch-- but very entertaining. People argument some things that the family could have done; traveling, contracting many bodyguards... but if they did that, the film wouldn't exist, so let it be like this. Let's pretend there's nothing they could do-- which instantaneously makes it loose some points, since there is no pretending in good movies. The writers were lucky that the psychological thriller genre was very fresh in 1991 due to Silence of The Lambs' success, so this one surely got more attention than it would if released randomly.I don't believe that someone would be that revengeful with the lawyer; usually, if they want revenge, they prefer the prosecutor or the judge. This is an unusual case of lack of ethics which caused big tormenting to the lawyer's family. There's one scene in particular that my heart bombed: it was when the 'maid' turned around and it was actually Max Cady. The director made it look so demonic that me and my friend jumped without even knowing if this guy was all that lunatic. All in all, SEE THIS MOVIE!

'Sling Blade' is A Terrific Effort by Billy Bob Thornton! A Riveting Film about relationships & redemption. Thornton's Oscar-Winning Adapted Screenplay, is simply, SUPERB! 'Sling Blade' Synopsis: Karl Childers, a simple man hospitalized since his childhood murder of his mother and her lover, is released to start a new life in a small town.Thornton's Direction is no less than extra-ordinary. Like his Oscar-Winning Adapted Screenplay, His Narration to this Difficult Story about relationships & redemption, unfolds SUPERBLY. Cinematography, Editing & Art Design, are satisfactory. Performance Wise: Thornton's Oscar-Nominated Performance as Karl Childers, is an Embodiment! Thornton has handled all the Three Departments, with Magic! The Late John Ritter is remarkable, he stands out as well. Dwight Yoakam is fabulous. Lucas Black & Natalie Canerday are very sincere, while Bob Duvall & J. T. Walsh are excellent in bit roles.On the whole, 'Sling Blade' is Thornton's Masterstroke!

One of the most impressive things I have seen in the cinema this year was the final chapter in the Harry Potter series, not necessarily because of the quality of the film, but rather how Warner Bros. managed to maintain the quality of the franchise over ten years and eight films. Seeing the end to a cinematic phenomenon, one which we are unlikely to see the likes of again for quite some time, is bittersweet, but The Deathly Hallows, part two managed to tie everything together in a satisfying, if not ultimately surprising manner. While maybe the film didn't need to be split into two, it's hard to imagine that many fans of the series would be disappointed in how the conclusion turned out. Now that Harry Potter has ended, the next huge franchise soon to end is the Twilight saga, and, like Potter, in the interest of selling twice the number of tickets the finale Breaking Dawn has been split into two films. I can understand why Harry Potter is such a beloved franchise. We are given a compelling, easily relatable hero who bravely stands his ground against everything awful that is thrown at him, while also dealing with the realities of growing up and facing responsibility. Surrounded by the fantastical world of wizards, potions and dragons, there is something so real about Harry that grounds the story for us. Twilight on the other hand is a complete mystery. I honestly cannot understand the popularity of these books and films, and if I had children of my own I probably wouldn't allow them to watch this series. It's upsetting that this has become the standard of young adult fiction, and how anyone, regardless of age, could find this nonsense even slightly romantic is baffling. That said, Breaking Dawn, part one is an absolutely fascinating film, filled with more bizarre moments than the previous three films combined, and it's almost worth seeing just to bask in the sheer lunacy of it all. Almost.Following an opening scene which allows Jacob (Taylor Lautner) to take his shirt off, Breaking Dawn begins with the lead-up to the moment everyone has been waiting for: the marriage of Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson). Predictably the scene is pure wedding porn, dragged out to a ridiculous length, but interestingly highlights the biggest problem with the Twilight saga right from the outset: Bella and Edward are a terrible couple. Bella seems so disconnected from Edward, even scared of him. They're supposed to be this perfect couple, but their relationship is so weird and distant that it just never seems right. Only when Jacob appears at the wedding does Bella seem to come to life, suggesting that she probably should have been with him all along. But no, she and Edward are married and set off for their honeymoon on the Cullen family's private island (after an inexplicable stopover in Rio de Janeiro). So far, so humdrum, but luckily it's at this point that Breaking Dawn really goes off the deep end. Given free rein following the success of the earlier books, it seems that author Stephenie Meyer had no-one around to question the decisions she makes regarding this story, all of which are completely insane.First, the love scene. It has been established that vampire/human sex is potentially dangerous, and that Bella's life is in danger if she and Edward wish to consummate their marriage. So, what Meyer expects to be a touching, romantic moment between young lovers becomes a sick, voyeuristic ordeal that leaves Bella bruised, and the bedroom in ruins. Thankfully, in the interests of salvaging the film's PG-13 rating, the scene is brief. Much has been made of Twilight's theme of abstinence, but is Meyer really that terrified of intercourse that, even after the wedding, sex is still so closely aligned with physical abuse? Next, Bella instantly becomes pregnant with a half human, half vampire demon child which grows at such a rate that it begins to consume its mother from the inside. There's some mention of abortion made which is more or less forgotten right away, bringing up another problem with this series: Meyer isn't able to effectively convey what her themes are at all. There are so many random moments where some message seems to be coming through, but before it can be explored it's forgotten, or more likely replaced by another obscure metaphor which doesn't make ay sense. Maybe it's because I'm not in the targeted teenage girl demographic, but it seemed that for at least half of this film I was left scratching my head.Review continues at tinribs27.wordpress.com

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've walked out of a movie in the middle or turned off the video/DVD. Ocean's Twelve belongs to that undistinguished group. Unlike Ocean's Eleven (the modern remake, not the original), this movie has remarkably little going for it despite the presence of a gifted, star-quality cast. Since I gave up after half an hour, thoroughly uninvolved in the story's premise and in its execution, I can only say that this film has the worst beginning of any movie I've seen in the past decade. It may have improved at later stages but I wasn't willing to stay around to see if it did.

Woody Allen is not a director whose films I am familiar with, but the first one I have had the pleasure of seeing is something both smart and funny. Some may find the humour on show, off putting but me I found it extremely amusing and refreshing to what most films call comedy these days; especially during a scene involving Meyers and a shotgun that reminded me of the great film 'American psycho' from the year 2000.The first half hour is pretty simple but effective, Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Chris Wilton) is not sure what he wants to do with his life when he moves to London, during which you see his character getting use to London and meeting new people, like where he meets Tom Hewett played by Matthew Goode at a members only club in a friendly tennis match; in which they become good friends and the family introductions are all done and so forth, then he has a liking for Tom's sister played by Emily Mortimer which ends up with them together, but only later does he meet Tom's fiancée (Nola) played by the beautiful Scarlett Johannsson and has already fell in love with her on their first meet, however as it all unravels you get to see a terrific drama with a comedic tone, some very good romance and a truly great scene involving Johansson and Meyers when they finally kiss and make out in a field during heavy rain.The acting is very good, with some other notable performances from Brian Cox (Eleanor's Father), Penelope Wilton (Eleanor's mother), and Ewen Bremmer as a detective to name a few. However Johansson and Meyers chemistry is even better with both of them giving highly respectable performances and contributing to some of the best moments in the picture. During the first half I kept thinking this is extremely predictable but still completely enjoyable, but by the end I literally ate my words, as the second act and most notably the surprising third act had me on the edge of my seat; and I kept thinking Allen, your script is pure genius, not only did you give us an entertaining film, you gave us a highly entertaining, great piece of filmmaking with a remarkably engaging plot. There's plenty of energy within the cast, it's cleverly written, smartly directed and like I mentioned very amusing with plenty of refreshing dialogue; Match Point is simply a great film.

There are great reviews of this one out here, and there are trolls reviews venting that all Marvel Movies are alike, over hyped and over cgi bullshit*t. Well I am kind of in between here. This one is much better than a dreadful one where two teams of super heroes actually both lose in the movie. It is a notch short of some of Marvels best efforts. That is why Stan Lee is on a bus on this one. He is trying to stay out of the way and yet laugh all the way to the bank. Successful, Lee is.The movie makes it because Dr. Strange actor pulls off his role pretty well. It does get a little deep in all the fighting and action sequences. The bald lady comes off very much like that old lady who is in charge of James Bond in the last few outings.The movie is predictable, and yet enjoyable. Could it be better, yes, and the feelings between Strange and his estranged wife are not very emotional. Of course who has room for emotions when you need to save the entire world?This is one of the places the emotion is lacking a bit. The characters do the best they can with the script, but it could have been better. The ending credits contain 2 surprises, and one thing that is not surprising. There are only about 4 songs that get credits in this one because Dr. Strange is just not very musical.Maybe that is a sour note, but it depends on what you like, You could say that in a diner, this movie is the blue plate special, better than a plain cheese sandwich, but not a prime rib sandwich. Then again in some eateries, the Blue Plate is the prime rib. It's just left over from yesterday's special.

This was, without a doubt, a good movie. Casey Affleck does a great job, as does Lucas Hedges. (I confess that I had to Google the name of Patrick's actor. I'm mildly ashamed.) The film's many slow, somber scenes convey more emotion than I thought was possible in the silence between the actors' words.However, after the intense revelation of the fire, the movie really seemed to slow down to me. The conclusion was pleasantly bittersweet, and it was nice that this film defies the clichés in that way, if not others.

I have read through the assortment of comments and I have to be brutally honest in saying: most of them are perfect examples of the mainstream mind. So sorry if that offends anyone, but I do believe that most reviewers have neither the emotional stamina nor the intellectual capacity to thoroughly understand and enjoy Darren Aronofsky's film.I have been waiting for nearly two years to see this film, suffering through endless uncertainty concerning script, actors, budget, release dates, and after seeing the film finally I will admit it is one of the most beautifully poignant films I have ever seen.I believe that Jackman and Weisz are much better choices for leads than Pitt and Blanchett. Jackman's intense, extremely personal acting made the character of Thomas believable: the pain you see in his eyes is essential to connecting with his 'eternal' struggle to save the love of his 'lives' Izzy, played by Weisz, who's acting is also another picture-perfect example of poised understatement. Their fragility is effortless and they impart a humanity to the characters that makes them immortal and almost iconic.This film contains a certain serenity that will completely go over the heads of most viewers. The ability to truly connect with someone and to love them throughout eternity is a rare one and Aronofsky puts forth an interesting example of how two people can live and love forever. We are expected to immerse ourselves into their love and I believe that might be one of the most contentious parts of this film seeing as how the majority of people have not and most likely never will be loved in such a manner.I will wrap this up by saying Clint Mansell's score with some help from The Kronos Quartet was almost like a third lead actor. The desperation emanating from Jackman's Thomas was translated into a steady stream of muted yet at the same time, brilliant music. The film effects (which are not CGI by the way) are utterly metaphysical and they carry that certain touch of eternity that Arnofsky was aiming for.If you can release your inhibitions and clear your mind of the expected, this film will be a breath of piercingly fresh air. And if you want fast action, pointless bloodshed, ridiculous sex scenes and reworked dialogue from a thousand other mainstream films, go see something else and leave the intelligent films to those who appreciate them.Cheers to Aronofsky for breaking the mold and making cinema worthy of the title 'art'.

Science fiction is, at its core, more than just a hypothetical fantasy about our distant neighbours twinkling in the night. It is also a reflection on humanity. It holds the mirror up to our faces and forces us to question who we are; when our aspirations, morals, ideals and weaknesses are put to the test, are we really who we think? And what is our place in the great darkness that surrounds us, frightens and amazes us? To know your own culture; learn another man's customs. It is only by comparison that we can truly see ourselves. And it is also only us, as subjective individuals, that can know who we are beneath our human exteriors. Many of us focus too much on our weaknesses and turn to God/s and religion for love and acceptance despite our faults, with heaven as the ultimate point of approval. Acceptance by someone or something that truly sees us, not only the shortcomings, but also for what we hope to believe that we fundamentally are; good, decent, with the heart in the right place, trying to make the best of what we have been given. Some of us don't believe in God, or profoundly question his/her/its existence. Many fear death, the unknown, never to see, feel or experience anything again. To be forgotten. For ever.So the question becomes: does this introduction have a point and what does Avatar have to do with it? Mr James Cameron is a self-proclaimed sci-fi nerd and - not to mention - a human being (although I agree questionable, let us make that assumption for convenience sake) and just like many of us I am sure he shares many of the same existential thoughts and questions that find their way into our human brains and skeptic hearts. And like many of us he seems to share a craving for adventure, discovery, enlightenment and a curiosity of the world, the universe and the beings with whom we happen to share our short time here on Earth.With Avatar, Mr Cameron manages to address most of these existential questions: who are we? Not in the comfort of our living rooms, nestled in the sofa with a bag of crisps and a chocolate bar in front of the TV, but in the face of choice. The choice between convenience and what we believe in. When all the luxuries have been taken away, and all the shields and walls and layers have been peeled off, do we like what we see? Avatarians have an expression; "I see you", which comes with such a deep ring to it because it is what we all want the world and people around us to do; to recognize, appreciate and care about us and to see that no matter how we might act and react on occasions, deep down we are good. These glasses we desire others to wear when they look at us also have another umbrella term; love. Some say love is blind, but to me at least, real love is not blind, it is understanding. It looks beyond the flaws and recognizes us for all the good things that we are. It sees our actions from our point of view.The story of Pandora's box in Greek mythology depicts how numerous evils were let into our world in a moment of weakness on Pandora's behalf. In much the same way, humanity in James Cameron's Avatar goes to the planet of Pandora and is confronted with a choice; open the lid or let the box be. Naturally, the greed (for money, power, etc) wins, and so, the lid is opened. Naturally, it has consequences. However, just like in the original story of Pandora's box, something else was let into the world when the lid was pulled away, something to counterbalance the evils that had been unleashed; hope. The hope that the good will, eventually, win. In Cameron's Avatar, this hope is represented by a group of humans who are not set out to exploit the people and resources of Pandora, but to understand it. And with understanding comes the ability to see clearly, and with this comes, ultimately, love. Love is not blind, but ignorance is, and ignorance is the root of most evils taking place in the world today.We all choose how we want to see the world. Everything is neutral as far as the universe is concerned; there is no good or evil, no good or bad, no morals set in some sacred stone at the heart of the heart of the universe. Morals are what we, humans, have created because we have a conscience. We have the ability to empathise and sympathise, to see the world through other's eyes as if they were our own.On Pandora, everything is connected; the trees, the animals, the flora and fauna, the past and the present, the living and the dead. If we as humans could be as connected with each other and communicating as much, I believe understanding of each other's differences would ultimately result in the realisation that we are in fact more similar than different. I believe that one such medium of communication already exists today – the Internet. Another one is the media but the question is how well it is working.I think Cameron's intended message with this film is very simple and – I admit – very cliché, but also very true and it doesn't hurt to be reminded of every once in a while; to see what we value and to stand up for it.Plus, it's easier to see the world through another's eyes when it's presented with such smashing CGI...

This movie was so boring I literally had to leave the theater before I fell asleep sitting upright. I gave Interstellar a full hour to get more interesting, considering the rave reviews and ratings on this site that prompted me to see it. But I couldn't wait any longer.The film was scientifically implausible to such an extent that I could not suspend disbelief and enjoy the film at face value. The character development was weak, the protagonist was arrogant and unlikable and the acting talent of many great actors was utterly wasted on this bomb. The dialog was predictable, unimaginative and flat. While it did not affect the quality of the film, I was disappointed that the movie was based on the dangerous delusion that human beings might be able to find a new home in space, so people don't have to think too much about taking action on the very real climate change that is destroying planet Earth right now. But it was the series of stupid moments in the first hour that informed me Interstellar was not going to meet my standards for an intelligent film. The first stupid moment was during the life-threatening giant dust storm scene, complete with large chunks of flying debris. After the family jumps into the truck and races home for shelter, the driver inexplicably parks the truck about fifteen yards away from the front door so that they all have to run outside through the dust storm before reaching the house. Huh?Another stupid moment was when the protagonist is asked to pilot a gargantuan state-of-the-art space craft (apparently built by a few dozen people without any budget) less than an hour after he first surprises NASA with his first arrival. This pilot has not flown an aircraft for years and there is no way anyone, no matter how experienced he once was, could fully master the technology of this ship and be prepared for a complex space mission in the extremely short period of time that elapsed (evidenced by no change in the age of the pilot's children) between being asked to captain the ship and actually doing so. He almost instantly assumes full command of the ship and the crew and successfully takes the ship into deep outer space on a dangerous mission. This sequence of events had no credibility. It felt like some adolescent boy's fantasy come true.The last-straw final stupid moment was when I realized that the female astronaut played by Anne Hathaway is wearing fresh make-up everyday including false eyelashes. Not a big deal considering the major problems with this film, but it nevertheless annoyed me. What competent astronaut is going to waste time and energy applying false eyelashes in outer space during a serious space mission? How would several years worth of cosmetics (along with false eyelashes) even get approved as cargo given the severe space limitations of a spaceship? How are we supposed to find this astronaut credible?That's when I realized it really was time to abandon the film. I was getting downright irritable.

I've been wondering why this movie has been getting such high acclaim. First of all it lacks one of the most fundamental aspects of a movie; pace. It takes half of the movie for it to get past boring talk and uneventful scenes.Once the movie does get going, it has a few suspenseful scenes that make you anticipate an amazing ending, but leaves you at the edge of your seat wondering what happened to the rest of the film.The only good aspect of this movie is the great acting from Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. The film could have been so much more. I give it a 4 out of 10.

This film marks the incredibly successful of the director robert zemeckis with the help of steven spielberg, this film is so funny, so well written, so well acted, is one of the most emblematic films in the historymarty mcfly represent the teenagers of the 80's and how he approaches his parents and sees them as teens understanding it more, seeing the future of his people from the beginning that's the real message of this movie and the power to change your own future. back to the future is the classic teenager movie have everything, comedy, cool effects it's a family movie, a total classic!!!

Watching HUNTING again 13 years later, I still find it a terrific effort, especially since it was written by the then-very young Damon and Affleck. A janitor (Damon) at MIT is a math whiz with serious emotional problems. A once-prominent shrink (Williams) with problems of his own is brought in to deal with the kid. Meanwhile, romance is blossoming between the janitor and a high-spirited Harvard pre-med student (Driver). The janitor's pals, a bunch of blue collar types led by Affleck, are uneasy with what's happening but always stand by this shy Einsteinian genius. Not a single false note is struck in this intense adult drama, which was well deserving its R rating for salty language and refusing to pull any punches. It was easy to see Damon would be going places, although I am not sure I could have predicted he would become become a 21st century action star. And of course his writing partner and buddy Affleck went on to greater glory in PHANTOMS.

You wonder why i nominate this movie for Oscars ?Look at the news. Terrorist attacks in the name of religion in Australia, France, Canada, Pakistan and not to mention the never ending fight in Syria and Iraq… and this is just last quarter of 2014 that i am talking about.Watch the movie. Its got an insanely amazing message to the world and fake religious leaders. Easily the best movie from Bollywood. Must see and will lose my faith in Grammy's if this doesn't deserve an Oscar with how ridiculous our planet is turning into.Spread the word and popularity Grammy's. The world needs to get this message.

A nurse (Bibi Andersson) is hired to take care of an actress (Liv Ullmann) who has stopped speaking. They are all alone on an isolated island and begin to become each other...or something. To be totally honest I haven't a clue on what I just saw! I'm not a Bergman fan but I have nothing against him either. I like some of his movies but find others boring, obvious and wildly overrated (like "Wild Strawberries"). This falls somewhere in between. It has some wonderful moments but the narrative seems to completely overhaul itself at least three times during the film. Just as it seems to be making sense something happens and you're flung into another version of the story with the same actors! Some people may find this intriguing but I found it annoying. Also some of the psychological points Bergman makes here are laughably obvious...but I suppose they were considered profound in 1966. Also there's one long monologue that is delivered TWICE! Yes--it lets us know what's going on but twice???? Complaints aside it was beautifully acted by Andersson and Ullmann and there were a few very interesting moments but the vague plot got maddening. Also I'm surprised that Bergman actually got a shot of an erect penis in the movie--that HAD to be quite daring for 1966. So, as it stands, I can only give this a 5.

I gave this a solid 7 out of 10 stars. It actually was well directed and well acted. The SFX was superb and the story line wasn't bad either. I waited till I had nothing else better to do and decided to watch it. Now to my point of the title of this review. YES, the marketing team totally marketed this film wrong! If they had marketed it differently, catered more towards the older adults perhaps it would have made more money in it's grand opening. A 150 mil flick which took in 15 mil. on it's opening weekend is a total bomb. I'm a 40 year old man so when it came out and I saw the previews I could've sworn I thought this was a musical family movie. Jackman having a singing background, yes he was a very accomplished singer before his rise to stardom, I thought we are going to see another character where Jackman wears black tights and croons out pirate melodies. Boy was I way off. I don't recall him singing anything in this movie. In fact, he played the evil villain brilliantly. I totally despised him at the end. The story was interesting as well, it did start out like a family movie but little by little Joe Wright decided to ease us in to a more PG-13 rating towards the middle and end of the movie. The sfx was excellent. Wish I could've been there to see it in its full glory, the big screen and 3-D. It probably would've been amazing to watch. That crocodile that jumped out of the water was very well executed and so believable looking. This movie did not try so hard to be a family movie. It pretty much hit all the right notes for me and at the end I felt very satisfied that I saw a well-crafted movie. I would recommend it to anyone. Too bad the marketing team slipped with this one, it could've been a blockbuster! Perhaps made a few sequels but atlas it fell short. And that's a shame. Maybe word of mouth will save this film and make it into a cult classic, who knows. Until then do yourself a favor and watch this great flick!

That seems to be a favourite cliché applied to this fantasy film. The entire movie apparently is a child's dream about a concentration camp. Only in fairy stories would a death camp be so sparkling clean and spacious. The detainees in this (holiday) camp are free to move about as they please. They can even play with the Aryan Gretchens and Hansis if they want to.In the Czech Republic, there's an exhibit of drawings made by cute and precocious children vacationing at the Theresienstadt concentration camp. Their amusingly childish artwork shows typical scenes of camp life, large black monsters crushing tiny people wearing little yellow stars, for example.I happen to have seen another concentration camp film this week, Escape from Sobibor (1987). In that film, Jews also banter and jest with the Nazis, only they do it by applying axes to their heads and homemade knives to their stomachs. History would seem to have demonstrated that axes and knives are more effective tools for dealing with Nazis than making jokes at their expense."Uplifting" is another label assigned to Life Is Beautiful. It might better be applied to Escape from Sobibor, a true story about real people -- not "princes" and "princesses" -- overcoming real odds at huge cost to escape from an actual murder camp.Nice Offenbach music can be found in this film though, one of my personal favourites in fact, Tales of Hoffmann. SS men in actual death camps didn't keep a lot of Jewish opera records on hand for the musical edification of the inmates.

I remember the BBC coverage of the Oscars in 1995 . Barry Norman was asking the Brits in Hollywood - Among them Tracey Ullman and Alan Parker - what they thought of the years nominations and the British view was unanimous that FORREST GUMP was nothing more than an overated mediocre movie . After seeing the film for myself I`ve got to agree with the standard British view - This is an overated mediocre movie It`s impossible to believe anyone outside America could love this movie . The overated ( Third time I`ve used that word in this review ! ) Tom Hanks plays Forrest the local town idiot who experiences many of the truimphs and torments of 1950s 60s and 70s America , and it`s all produced , played and written in a sickly sweet way , so sickly sweet you should watch this with a bucket in your hand so you don`t get any vomit on the carpet.Amazing fact . Both American and non American voters on this site give FORREST GUMP an identical voter average - 8.1 . I`m at a loss to explain this

Mighty Mo don't listen to them to answer your question no this is not better than godfather 2 by any stretch of the imagination to most godfather 1 fans and this film takes place in my heart which takes place before the second godfather wan I watch it I always want to reply the first history to understand what happened exactly but there you go

I have to say I saw this movie when it first came out in theaters & when I remember a scene or here someone talk about it, I run home & watch it again!! This movie is so funny and it is one of those movies that the more you watch you catch more and more funny parts you might have missed the first time around. If you have a great sense of humor and loved Napoleon Dynamite this movie would be great for you! I have to say all the phrases from this movie are now in our daily vocabulary "Everrryyyday" ha-ha!!This movie makes you laugh from beginning to end. It is so worth the price you pay at the theater as well as having it as your DVD home collection.

When I heard about Saw, I heard it was a terrible movie. So when I went to go see it at the movie theater I didn't really know what to expect. To my amazement this was one of the most unique and interesting movies I have EVER seen, and trust me when I say I have seen pretty much everything. I have watched this movie 3 times just today, call me sick but I love it. I pray there will be a second one that is just as great as this. The only part that I didn't like about it was at the end when Lawerance is reaching for the cell phone, why didn't he take off his shirt and get it like he had suggested to Adam. That just seemed stupid to me. But the ending so made up for it. My jaw dropped when I found out who it was. If I had to pick one word to describe it I would pick AMAZING!

James Cameron took over directing duties from Ridley Scott, and like the original, directs this with remarkable intensity and suspense, as Ripley is rescued from her hyper sleep, and later persuaded to return to the same alien planet where all that horror she left behind comes back multiplied, after a colony stumbles upon the same derelict ship, and comes into contact with the merciless alien creatures...A model on how to produce a sequel; continue the original, building on the plot without repeating it, while at the same time respecting the past, and putting your own stamp on things. Just like the first, this is extremely effective in story, character development, and excitement, building to an action-packed and satisfying climax.One of the finest sequels ever made!

What a wonderful movie!! Keeps you on the edge of your seat. Extremely scary without being gory. Definitely get the DVD and listen to Night's comments, the symbolism and comments he make really added a lot to an already great movie and really shows you what kind of effort was put in to make the movie work and make sense. Haley Osmond give the best performance by a young performer that I have ever seen, you truly feel the despair and fear that he is going through when he can "see dead people". Bruce Willis turns in an understated but very good performance. This one is guaranteed to have chills running down your spine.

"Election" is a rather funny comedy. It's definitely well-written and well-acted. Reese Witherspoon is quite brilliant as Tracy Flick, Matthew Broderick is good as Mr M and Chris Klein does a great job as well. Even though the film is not as good as I had expected, it's still very entertaining. (6/10)

The dialogue is so rich that one must stifle glee lest the next bon mot be missed. Tastefully bawdy, filled with innuendo, intellectually low brow and fun. We loved the characters and the old fashioned, very vaudevillian running gags. This is a wonderful film for couples, even a first date, the clever adult inferences were seen somewhat differently by my wife, leading to lively post viewing conversation.

It had everything i'd hoped for: jump scares, creepy, chilling, extremely tense and very scary! Not only does the movie gives you chills but it makes the movie more scarier because it was indeed based on true events. The Strangers had a mix between Halloween (1978) and Scream, put those movies together and you got yourself an extremely tense, chilling & scary movie and it delivered that easily!! It's not the scariest movie ever made but it is one of the scariest movies of the decade. So, for the few who haven't seen The Strangers yet and looking for a good scare, The Strangers is your movie! The only disappointing thing about the movie was the running time, it was a really short movie (1 hr.25 mins) and they could of added 15 more minutes to the movie. But it didn't concern me because it had everything i've wanted!!! It's the scariest 1 hour and a half minutes film i've seen!!!