Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 1

Surely one of the best films of the 1980's, or even perhaps of the last quarter of the 20th century. Everything about this movie, from the complete character foil of Amadeus compared to Salieri, the conflict within conflict storyline of the rise of genius versus the toil of mediocrity, to the ultimate demise of 2 men, one whose talent is consumed by the ravages of alcohol and guilt while the other's soul is consumed by the power of envy. It's the very rare modern day film, with all the trappings of today's film debauchery (language, sex, violence, etc.) that could just as easily have been produced back in the golden age of Hollywood (pre-1950.) F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of Salieri is truly Oscar award worthy. What better way to teach history than to show it through the eyes of the third person in which every step of the title character's role is seen with enough detail as to not confine the character within the facts of histories already known. Yes, as within most Hollywood's rendering of history, there are surely many facts that have been left to the director/screenwriter's interpretation, but then again - this is entertainment, not education.A must see.

'The Terminator', when it was released in the 80s, had perhaps more potential than any other movie of that decade. It was highly imaginative and therefore needed a very convincing delivery of the film-script from the actors. It succeeded. But 1984 was far too soon for James Cameron to pull off a special effects feast. For that, 'Terminator' fans would have to wait about 7 years.So finally, in 1991, what 'The Terminator' promised in ideas, 'T-2' delivered in substance. Don't get me wrong: 'Terminator' had action. But it is second rate compared to this. The special effects of 'T-2' were tremendous and thoroughly ground- breaking. They were like nothing that had ever been seen. From beginning to end, it delivers a proper dose of quality action footage. Many action films fail to deliver the kind of quality action you find in this film. It's the very best of the best and not a scene is wasted.The plot is thrilling, scary and fast-paced. Two terminators are sent back in time. The more powerful terminator is sent to kill John Connor; the other (Arnie) to protect him. The entire future of the human race depends upon Arnie, the weaker terminator, protecting John Connor (a young lad) from termination. The music is iconic and memorable - well suited for a 'Terminator' movie. Cameron likes to pull at the heart strings.The acting is superb, especially from Linda Hamilton. Her character is very different to the first movie - she has developed a lot. And many would agree that this is Arnie's best performance. Not only is he brilliant in all the stunts and action pieces, but Cameron brought out Arnie's abilities to produce on-screen a terminator with feelings and with heart. The scenes where Arnie and John Connor show how much they care about each other are very special, but also very sad. Edward Furlong delivers an influential performance, with depth and maturity. The characters are deep and engaging, including the terminators. That's quite an achievement from Cameron.What is so great about this movie is that it can stand alone. It doesn't need the first instalment, nor the later two instalments, to be well appreciated. I watched it about 5 times before I saw the first movie. On the whole, I think this is one of my favourite movies of all time. It's not just an action movie. It is an action movie, yes. But what makes it the grandest action movie ever is that it's got heart. It hits you hard and leaves you thinking for ages afterwards. It's a really excellent film and I think this is better even than Cameron's 'Titanic'.

This movie has it all. Most people agree. It's probably my favorite film of all time. The people who don't like it because it's too insane or sick, go watch some Disney movies. This movie flows perfect, sure it has some mistakes, what movie doesn't? This one however doesn't need to hide, its perfect. The ideas, stories, branching ways, characters, moods, appearance is perfect. I watched it so many times, just to get it out, Lou! 100 out of 10!!!!

This third Harry Potter film is the best one yet. Director Alphonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, A Little Princess) has taken over from Chris Columbus and has stuck less slavishly to the original JK Rowling Books.Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are back as Harry, Ron and Hermoine, with Hermoine in particular getting to do a lot more. There are less Quidditch matches, and more menace, in keeping with the improved complexity of Rowling's third novel. Hogwarts is not safe, Draco Malfoy is no longer a menace, but just a pain in the ass. And the new CGI-scripted character Buckbeak the Hippogriff (half eagle, half horse) looks fantastic and has personality.The kids are all supposed to be thirteen but look older - hey we'll forgive them. Neville Longbottom has lost so much weight he's almost unrecognisable.Great performances from Emma Thompson hamming it up as the ditsy professor of foretelling, Prof Trelawny, Michael Gambon as the new Professor Dumbledore (not as magical but good), David Thewliss as Prof Lupin, and Gary Oldman as the Prisoner of Azkhaban.Thrilling, complex, menacing, ****/***** stars.

Milos Forman is one of the greatest directors of our time. He has only made a handful of movies but each one he makes is an excellent success. "Man On The Moon" is no exception. Jim Carrey plays Andy Kaufman to a "T": his voice and mannerisms are top-notch. The movie doesn't leave out any major details about Andy Kaufman's life. Everything you've seen or heard about is in this movie. Although it's a few minutes shy of 2 hours, it never seems to rush through anything. I didn't want it to end. The opening scene is one of the most interesting scenes ever in a movie. This goes right up there with Forman's previous works (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus) and is superior over Forman's last biopic The People Vs. Larry Flynt, another very good movie but not an excellent one.

As the show continues to throw unexpected twists and turns i find myself stuck on one thing trying to figure out what happened. There a lot of electric moments where there's lights flickering and beams of lights in the dark. There is a whole other world where if blood is in the real world then this monster comes out and begins attacking.Then the girl that looks like a boy is getting hunted down by her father because he know that she has super powers.The biggest part of the story line is to figure out where will is. Will is in another word and he can communicate in lights and other ways. There is a moment in the show where some people say it was will that got pulled out of the water but his friends knew that it wasn't him.

I was intrigued to see this film, the plot seemed to be unique and interesting. But after about ten minutes of viewing, I can assure you that there are no more surprises, nothing exciting, and the show continues until the predictable and unexciting end. I'm offended by the fact that this film has scored so high. The only explanation is that the lower grades are not counted for some strange problem with the IMDb algorithm. Other big problems of the movie? The pants worn by the actors. The fact that the main actor burned his brain with drugs. I would not recommend seeing this movie. If you just decide to watch it, I recommend you see this film alone, with no one next to it. This way you can go ahead jumping ten minutes at a time and concluding this terrible experience in twenty minutes.

A potentially good storyline. Horribly done. The dumbest lines I've ever heard in this movie. I don't even know how this movie got higher reviews than other great horror movies out there. Well, one idea is that people just loved it because of Megan Fox and the other is that the fact that people might also have really dense minds that didn't mind most of the stupidity in this film. Megan Fox did not do a splendid job at acting. This movie seems to aim for very dense minds of teens rather than try to put out a good movie in general. Short lines with some teen humor. This was almost on the verge of a teen horror movie spoof. Sorry, but I've never picked a cast or cast member over acting or a good storyline/plot. If a hot bod really made a good movie, a lot of B-movies out there wouldn't be considered a B-movie. If you want a dumb teen "horror", this movie is for you. If you want an actual horror movie that is good, look elsewhere.

I've grown up watching Disney movies all my life. So many princess movies I've seen, and Tangled had blown me away. Absolutely loved it. It's not just because I thought Flynn Rider was a gorgeous animated character only, but because the movie itself was great. The storyline was great, and I prefer this over the original Rapunzel storyline. The movie got me teary a bit, but that's just me. I'm quite sensitive to movies like this. I think I've watched it six times now, and I haven't gotten tired of it. The soundtrack is great too! Different varieties of music incorporated into the movie. Probably my favorite Disney from now on. :)

Despite being one of the most anticipated movie of the year, David Ayer's Suicide Squad was unable to fulfill the expectations of the audience. It is important to notice that while all the usual elements of a superhero flick are present, this is a somewhat different kind of a superhero film. It consists of the villains we love from DC Universe, doing atrocious things all in the name of good. In the first half of the movie it looks quite promising but in second half storytelling becomes slow and it starts loosing connection with the audience.Oscar nominee actor Will Smith leads the squad and fully justifies the character of the unerring assassin, Deadshot. Margot Robbie is terrific as the giggly devious maniac Harley Quinn, earning the movie's best lines and nailing almost every one of them. The movie has a little feminist tone as all female characters are shown strong, confident and given kick-ass lines, thus breaking the usual stereotypes about women. The Oscar winning actor Jared Leto's Joker has less than 10 minutes of screen time. Though Jared Leto brought a new perspective to the Joker, his performance couldn't reach the bar set by Heath Ledger's legendary Joker in DC's Dark Knight.In my opinion, the best kind of visual effects are the ones where we can't separate effects from reality and Suicide Squad gets full marks in this department. The fighting scenes were amazingly shot, the camera angles of each stunt were stunning and chosen very appropriately. Amazing work was done in Cinematography and some scenes were so exquisitely shot that it gave me Goosebumps, like the scene of Enchantress taking control over Dr June Moon.Overall the dialogues and fight scenes were great while the plot was quite weak. Still the story was saved by the awesome performance delivered by Margot Robbie and Will Smith .If you don't like Action and Superhero movies then this is definitely not for you. For all the DC comic lovers this exciting entertainer is a must watch.

When Ivan Reitman directed Ghostbusters (one of my all time favourite comedies) in 1984, it was the runaway hit of the year. And with good reason. It combined cutting edge special effects with a terrific troupe of comedians from Saturday Night Live, and redefined what mainstream comedy could be all about.But since then, Ivan Reitman's career has been decidedly uneven. With Evolution, he has made a welcome return to form. Although it doesn't come close to eclipsing Ghostbusters, this amiable comedy is an amusing and inventive film, and one of Reitman's more well rounded comedies of recent years.Like Ghostbusters, Evolution is about a group of scientists who take it upon themselves to save the world. But not from the supernatural. This time the threat comes from the stars.Our story begins when a meteorite crashes to Earth in the Arizona desert. Inside the meteor are alien cells. Once they've arrived on Earth, they begin to evolve into all manner of different creatures. First it's just little things like worms and insects. But they start becoming more dangerous and intelligent. Things like amphibians, reptiles, primates, and eventually an enormous blob (don't ask!).The task of stopping these aliens has fallen into the hands of disgraced scientist Dr Ira Kane (David Duchovny) and the kooky Prof Harry Block (Orlando Jones). Two scientists who don't exactly inspire you with confidence, and if truth be told, seem a little half-arsed about everything. That's not surprising, since Reitman never portrays scientists as egg-headed geniuses. More like eccentrics only marginally more intelligent than people you'd meet on the streets. That was the way it was in Ghostbusters, and that's how it is with Evolution.Ira and Harry are joined by a sexy (and clumsy) scientist Dr Allison Reed (Julianne Moore) and trainee fireman Wayne Grey (Seann William Scott). Our hopeless foursome are all that stands between the aliens and Earth's extinction.It's impossible not to compare Evolution with Ghostbusters, because barring the fact the threat is alien this time, the plot is virtually identical. A group of scientists are called in to save the day. CGI creations running amok, and turning into something enormous they have to defeat to save the world.That's not to say its a terrible film. Personally, I don't mind if directors use the same sound ideas, just as long as they find a new spin on them. Although Ira and Harry don't have the crackling chemistry the Ghostbusters had, they do make a personable double act. David Duchovny has a real talent for understated comedy. His dry wit almost reminds you of Bill Murray at times.Orlando Jones is more zany but there are times when he really cracked me up, especially the scene where he has a pair of forceps jammed up his arse to retrieve a pesky fly inside his body. The two actors work well together, and they are rather endearing, so that's definitely a positive.Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Julianne Moore and Seann William Scott. Moore is rather flat, and never comes across as funny. For some reason she thought the idea of being an accident prone scientist would make people laugh. Quite frankly I don't know how Julianne Moore ever agreed to sign on to this project. A great actress like her deserved much better.And as for Seann William Scott, well I've never been a fan of him anyway. He always seems so obnoxious to me, which is why I didn't like the American Pie films all that much. He doesn't really add anything, and his presence was probably just a marketing ploy by the producers to bring in a teenage audience as well.I know I sound like I'm riffing the film, but Evolution does have it's strong points as well. The CGI effects are top notch, and we really do get a colourful assortment of creatures in this film. Personally my favourite part is when an alien dinosaur swoops into a shopping centre and makes off with a shoplifter. Ira, Harry and Wayne's rescue of the girl is one scene that recaptures the spirit of Ghostbusters, and then afterwards when they're on a high listening to "Play That Funky Music" it's not only funny, it fills you with a warm fuzzy feeling.It also has a nice line of supporting characters. Dan Aykroyd puts in an hilarious appearance as the Governor of Arizona. He has the self important befuddled politician stereotype down to a tee, and lights up the film whenever he's around. I also liked Katharine Towne as Nadine, one of Harry's students. She only gets a couple of scenes, but she's very funny as a prissy Valley Girl.Inevitably, things come to a head with the aliens coming together to form a massive blob (as I mentioned before). This giant monstrosity is not nearly as memorable as Mr Stay Puft, but at least it gives the FX technicians an opportunity to make the ending look impressive. Our heroes chosen weapon is Head and Shoulders (believe it or not!). That's not as preposterous as it sounds, especially from my perspective, who has used Head and Shoulders in the past, and knows exactly what it can do!Evolution was sadly not the success Ghostbusters was. It's not so surprising really, because Evolution was probably trying to cash in on the success of other recent sci-fi comedies like Men in Black. But Evolution is still an entertaining film, even if you don't root for these characters like the Ghostbusters.One thing I do like about Evolution. The Smiley face logo with the third eye. Now there's evolution for you Charles Darwin!

Loops and loops and loops. you think he is figuring things out and he isn't. the bubble looked cool but I was just thinking WTF is this? seemed like it was heading to a concise point of realization but nothing happens. Just before the ending I picked the worst way to end the movie I could possibly think of and and then "tada" thats the ending they went with. Everyone in the room was like OMG that was terrible. Voted immediately by all, worst movie we have ever seen. but now we are split some think this is the worst movie ever, others now think its slipstream. we are divided, but still its at the bottom of the barrel!

What can I add to all the other reviews here? Just my own feelings about this. I now realise I watched the film in one of the hardest times, emotionally, I can remember in my life. Thoughts chasing themselves around in my head, heartbroken, paranoid and not well physically. Total mess.My dear female friend who got me through it all told me this was a film to watch. I initially resisted, thinking it was going to be lightweight, PC fare. I don't know why I thought that.There's a lacklustre opening sequence -I think. Then you get to see what kind of performance Morgan Freeman is going to turn out this time, and you start to be interested. Then this extraordinary scene flying over the prison, and I think by then you're hooked.This scene is deeply moving, not least because of the music. It's difficult to see how Thomas Newman's music for this film could possibly be bettered - perfectly listenable to in it's own right, but when you do you're reminded of the boys on the roof in the sun, enjoying their first beer for so long. They've been touched by Andy's kindness. Sometimes a kindness is thrown back in one's face, but other times a gesture of gratitude is given back - like Haywood getting up and offering Andy one of his beers - and a powerful connection is made. The film is full of great hardships and unbearable sadness - surely scars that can never completely heal or be forgotten. But it is also full of joy and fun and hope. To capture all the above in a film is a triumph. I started watching the film fairly closed to feeling, but as I watched the end I could not contain my tears, unusually.So a moment when a film came along at the right time for me, and no doubt for many others

Thrilling, sophisticated and dark-toned, Suicide Squad delivers a big improvement over the DCEU, with Margot's portrayal as Harley Quinn and Jared Leto's joker. What the critics say is a lie, the film is awesome, exciting and definitely fun to watch, it definitely improved over Batman v Superman, adding some humor and a less darker cinematography.Enchantress was certainly my favourite, the surprise she turns out to be the main villain and her powers are just extraordinary! Cara Delevingne's portrayal was fabulous :) Amanda Waller just demonstrated such ruthless power, determination and antagonistic behaviour which I was extremely pleased about. Now.. Will Smith. Many thought it was a disaster he was cast as a villain / anti-hero but his acting was pretty impressive. Same goes with Jai Courtney, both showed a big surprise to their acting. I wouldn't really listen to what the critics say, this film is extremely dark and hilarious but I only gave it a 9 out of 10 because I thought it could've improved slightly, particularly the Joker's screen-time. He had about 25-30 or more minutes which wasn't enough but other than that, one of the best films of 2016 and certainly the best out of the DCEU (possibly till Wonder Woman <3)However, there were some weak plot holes. Especially when they revealed that Enchantress is the villain of the film. The worst part is that Joker's screen-time was limited and most of the movie was cut out, the majority of the trailer scenes were not even in the film itself. Especially the car chase with the batman, it was so short, not as long as I really hoped. Still, the film did deliver a wonderful masterpiece with its CGI and acting. Suicide Squad, a film which displays a talented cast and adds humor than previous DCEU films but needs to improve its plot and writing.

Steven Spielberg has always been a technical master of his motion pictures. He has always been able to capture exactly what his thoughts are on film and he does so probably better than any one in the history of cinema, but sometimes his thoughts are not so interesting, and some times his visions more interesting than others. Minority Report, originally a short story by Phillip K. Dick, is almost nothing like the short story it is based upon, but yet almost all Philip K. Dick fans claim this is the best cinematic renditions of his work. But in reality, the only ideas Spielberg keeps from the short story are that of Pre-crime, John Anderton running, and John Anderton's conspiracy theories, every thing else is different including the ending, the beginning, and pretty much every thing in between. But Spielberg took it on as his own visionary work and did so marvelously. He designed a world that any one can say holds true to what we all think the future will be like, and made it all look so real. But the real thing that makes this a classic is the fact that Spielberg managed to get a great plot into an action movie.

10 years. 20 years. It will be 50 years and this movie won't get old. It doesn't matter that animation is 100 times more detailed and cooler today than it was in 1995, when the movie first came out. The strength of this movie is in the story. There is so much territory to explore on this flic, and you have so much fun while you watch it, that you will never grow tired of it. And, with a 2.5-year old who loves to see Woody once and again, I can tell you it really doesn't get old, no matter how many times you watch it! The second disc does a superb job of accompanying the Pixar classic, going into the legendary details that have made Pixar's DVDs famous. There is plenty to sink your teeth into, for the die-hard fans and those who are simply a bit curious alike. The entire package is a movie for all ages, for the ages. Get it and enjoy it once and again. The truth is you can never go wrong with Woody and Buzz Lightyear!

She's The Man was everything I wanted it to be and maybe even a little more. I love the teen type "chick flick" films and I knew this one would be great!! In the same vein as 10 Things I Hate About You (one of my all time faves) She's The Man is a unique, well written, very well performed comedy with some of the funniest lines, and physical comedy I have seen in a long time. It's probably the funniest movie I've seen this year (with the exception of the hilarious Pink Panther.) But She's The Man is actually a more intellectual funny and most of the humor relies on the witty script, "Three's Company" style story of mistaken identities, and mixed messages, and the cast.Amanda Bynes is a star!! Even since the days of the horribly campy (yet strangely entertaining "The Amanda Show", she has shown a brilliant talent for comedy. She's probably one of the most talented comediennes out there. Her style of physical comedy, impersonations, and witty dialect makes her hilarious. Previously her big screen debut (where she was the star) was the rather hilarious and well made "What A Girl Wants." If that wasn't her break out vehicle than She's The Man takes care of that hands down. Bynes is really the ultimate girl next door. It's a shame she doesn't do more big screen work because she could be the next "It" girl. She is the All American, cute, down to earth, bubbly teen (although she's twenty now) and whether or not she'll be able to carry her talent and style over to being an adult actor will remain to be seen. But for the purpose of this film she is perfect!! She actually legitimately pulls off the rather outlandish plot of her impersonating her twin brother and makes it believable. Not entirely...but believable enough. Most of the script relies on the comedy of her errors trying to be a guy but it's just hilarious, non stop laughs. Channing Tatum redeems himself from his deplorable performance in 2005's "Havoc" by plays Duke. He's the jock, the captain of the soccer team, and eventually Bynes' object of affection, unfortunately he's also Sebastian's room mate (who is Bynes.) He's a good leading man, and the chemistry is perfect between them. Laura Ramsey is Olivia, who happens to be attracted to Sebastian (who again is Bynes.) She does good as well although her part is small and she doesn't really effect the rest of the cast one way or another. James Kirk is great in his small role as the real Sebastian. His resemblance to Amanda Bynes is astonishing...they are absolutely believable as twins and further more, from a distance you could understand someone believing Bynes is Sebastian. The rest of the cast all fit in there somewhere and their roles range from brief to more supporting but essentially they are all supporting the story between Bynes and Tatum but everyone is more or less supporting Bynes terrific performance. She easily carries the film with no hesitations and makes it worth while.This is one of those films that shows so much in the trailer and yet it's not one of those films that when that part comes up it's not funny anymore. The parts in the trailer that make you laugh are even more hilarious in the actual film. Relative newcomer director Andy Fickman does such an incredible job on this film. He weaves together a potentially complicated storyline and makes it flow naturally and makes everything fall together. The story which is loosely based off of Shakespeares Twelfth Night but it's remarkable how much they managed to translate over to this modern day film. It's seemingly completely off the wall but more exact to the classic comedy than you'd think. There isn't too much to say about a downside except that the last half hour drags a little and also becomes a might predictable but it doesn't change the hilarity of the first half of the film. Nonetheless you'll be laughing to tears and it's one of the funniest films in the theater right now hands down!!! 9/10

As disaster movies go, 2012 is definitely the big one. I mean, how do you outrun the world? An inordinately large neutrino burst from the sun causes the Earth to break, and creates much employment for special effects companies. Also, the planets in our solar system have aligned (which doesn't really mean anything, considering the gravitational force they would exert is microscopic) and narcissistic humans who still can't shake the fact that the universe does not revolve around them, seem to think it affects tectonic activity on little old Earth. Also - Mayan Prophecy. Now there's something REALLY scientific that proves all this is true! The Mayans predicted that in 2012, Digital Domain would have the computer graphic technology to wipe out the Himalayas and New York with tsunamis. This they do, as well as other cool stuff like raining down the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier on top of the White House and the noble president, who is tending injured people on the White House lawn by asking them if they'd vote for a public option.In 2012, writer-director Roland Emmerich has balanced his admittedly masterful use of CGI with his usually prosaic handling of human stereotypes. All the stereotypes are still here - the Everyman (John Cusack), the young scientist with all the answers and the body to go with them (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the noble President (Danny Glover - being black is now less of a fantasy than the nobility he displays in staying behind, which is absolute fantasy), the wacky prophet (Woody Harrelson), the ambitious politician (Oliver Platt), the brainless automaton military - but they either feel more organic to the plot, or the trillion dollar promotional campaign which could have gone towards bailing out another crybaby corporation on Wall Street affected my Discernment Gland.John Cusack uses his knowledge that he is the Leading Man to narrowly escape Earth-splitting cracks and falling objects, while wife Amanda Peet does her job of looking hot and screaming a lot; while her New Boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy, who can't stop looking like Patrick Wilson from WATCHMEN) pilots all of them unselfishly away from danger, when he should be familiar with enough disaster movies to realize he has to fall down a crevasse or something soon because his salary is nowhere near the Leading Man's.Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Emmerich, Chiwetel Ejiofor actually does some exceptional acting up against Oliver Platt, causing them to almost disappear into another movie with more credibility and less screaming.Amidst Roland's advertisement for a suite of outboard tools, there are some genuine touching moments: Chiwetel's father onboard a cruise ship that ultimately goes Poseidon; Russian pilot Sasha's (Johann Urb) camaraderie with fellow pilot McCarthy - that's not to say there's anything original about these moments. Apart from the Leading Man's relationships, the strongest emotional bonds are the ones set up to specifically destroy and target our Weeping Gland.Final scenes show desperate humanity trying to board gargantuan "arks" that billionaires have paid to have a berth on. Chiwetel curbs the inherent selfishness of the species by giving Oscar Speech Number 23-a, "What is it that makes us human?" rolling smoothly into importuning, "What will we tell our children?" and ending with the glorious "We can't build a civilization if our first act is one of cruelty!" which amazes us at how much it makes our flesh crawl.Okay, so let's deconstruct.1) "What is it that makes us human?" Apparently, money. The people clamoring to get onboard the arks, who are in danger of being left behind on the docks - ARE OTHER BILLIONAIRES who already paid for a berth, whom the arks were leaving behind because tsunamis were almost upon them. Opening the giant doors to let them in was not an act of kindness towards homeless bums and underprivileged day workers - it was a contractual obligation to other billionaires! 2) "What will we tell our children?" How about, "I paid a billion Euros to save your necks and you should be building a shrine to thank me!"? Now go clean out the poo in the gorilla cage.3 ) "We can't build a civilization if our first act is one of cruelty!" Sounds kinda morally correct - but is demonstrably wrong. Firstly, you already HAVE a civilization built on cruelty. The passengers onboard the arks were chosen because their pockets were one billion Euros deep. What exactly happened to all the middle class personnel who built the ships and maintained the infrastructure while you collected your billion-Euro payments? Oh, that's right, after they complete their menial jobs, they're dead to you. At least, they will be when that tsunami hits 'em in their poverty-stricken asses. Secondly, Mr. Black White House Official, have you forgotten that America's "civilization" was built on the skulls of Native Americans and African slaves? It's a good thing no one is paying attention to anything except the special effects. Or we'd all be dead.

First, I'm assuming that you've seen the other two Hunger Games movies...else there's not much point to sit through Mockingjay Part I (MJPT1). Second, I'm assuming that you're not a huge Transformers fan and/or didn't think that Pacific Rim nor Sharknado were the height of cinematic perfection. After the first two movies, we already know a lot of back story and setup/conflict between Katniss and Pres Snow. Mockingjay PtI then introduces us to District 13 (her destination as mentioned at the end of Catching Fire) and the District 13 society (only lightly limned in MJPT1). We know there's a war coming and MJPT1 sticks to the story line as outlined in The HG book(s) to a great degree.In terms of the movie and expectations, I never got the least bit bored nor did I feel I was just being dragged through Pt1 primarily to suck money out of me. There's a lot of there-there to be discussed, outlined, and philosophized about and, if you pay any attention, lots of action, too. Sure, this installment is a lot darker but that's how the story plays out. If you compare the structure of THG to LOTR, you know what the protagonist has to do: The Capital is Mordor; Katniss is Frodo; she's the Mockingjay and he's the ring-barer. Neither has an enviable job -- just a sadly necessary, burdensome one. You know where Katniss eventually has to go and MJPT1 does an excellent job of setting this in motion.

This movie turned out to be an interesting romantic science-fiction which concerns a politician by the name of "David Norris" (Matt Damon) who accidentally encounters divine beings responsible for determining his fate. By complete accident, he meets and falls in love with a woman named, "Elise Sellas" (Emily Blunt) who he is not supposed to become romantically involved with as it will alter the future course of events. Because of this he is then given a choice to either fulfill his destiny--and let Elise fulfill her destiny as well--or attempt to stay together and let the chips fall where they may. Now, rather than saying too much and possibly spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I won't say what happens next. I will say, however, that this is a cute and imaginative movie which viewers might find enjoyable if they like films of this nature. That said, I rate this movie as slightly above average.

And he succeeds. I was very skeptic when i first saw the trailer, i'm not a huge fan of Kurt Russel so that would probably be why.Tarantino tries to give you this 60's B-movie feeling...and man did he pulled it off or what?! If i didn't knew before i saw it that this movie was new, i would easily mistake it for an oldie. They've thought of everything, the font, the little dust particles on screen, the music and how the sound gets a bit wavy.The story is not to much to brag about. It's about a crazy stuntman which has the interest of killing teen-aged girls with his car.It's like this movie was made for Tarantino fans especially. So if you are one: you got yourself a movie for the night.Although there is not much else to talk about, i don't want to spoil anything or talk about sh*t that's in-relevant.Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof. "The movie of the year 2007, no doubt" 9/10

Falling Down Drama Ever have one of those days where you just must've woken up on the wrong side of the bed and every little thing just seems to irritate the hell outta you until you just can't handle it all anymore and pretty soon… yah snap?And then, you feel really refreshed for a moment… And then everything just gradually, somehow, incredibly… gets worse?That's Falling Down. "A Tale of Urban Reality." Michael Douglas stars as the guy that just can't take it anymore. But he doesn't just snap. He calmly goes berserk through Los Angeles. All he wants to do is see his little girl on her birthday. So he walks away from his car, leaving it stranded on a busy highway so he can meander through the city to go see his daughter. And along the way, he meets countless interesting jerks and pricks and gradually takes revenge on the world that has so thoroughly screwed him and left him broken. Robert Duvall plays "the desk cop on his last day" who's seeing connections between spots of random lunacy as they crop up in a straight line in the city. It's all uphill from there, right?Here's the breakdown:The Good:--This is a rare film and one to be applauded for it's stark raving visualization of a broken-down middle-aged white man. In this day and age of rampant, raging political correctness, here we have a film following someone screwed by the system—who isn't a minority. It lends to the idea that society itself has dealt the protagonist a mighty blow. Okay, to some people, this sounds stupid, I've met them. "Oh the poor white man!! (sarcasm, followed by:) Who gives a f*ck?" Well, for one, white guys that have lived in a system that prides itself on helping everyone but heterosexual healthy white males—the ones blamed for everyone else's misfortunes—this is a film of pride and sorrow. It hits home. Down on your luck and it just gets worse and no one wants to fight for you—the white man. Left to fend for yourself in a system increasingly against you—the white man. No more luck and no way out. So, granted, this film has a small audience, but that doesn't lessen the impact of the story—and that's my top spot here for The Good—this film has some balls on it.--Within about five minutes, your eyes widen and you wonder just how far this film will go to show how on the end of his rope, Michael Douglas's character, known only as D-FENS is. The outburst he exhibits from being charged 85 cents for a can of pop gets the movie off to a great start—one which helps hold attention.--Excellent acting through and through. Douglas hits all the right notes and buttons from agitation to confusion, he exhibits, not just traits growing in our modern, busy-as-hell yuppie white middle-aged males, but also a frustration that can be shared by most all people for the little things here and there that pick and bite at our stress tolerances.--Surprising, shocking, and funny scenes crop up throughout the film—though they aren't "ha ha" funny so much as they are very entertaining. Just watch the scene in Whammy Burger and tell me that's not as funny as it is tense.--Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall are both top notch in their performances. We have quite a bit of depth in both of them and get to know them quite well. We're introduced to their minds and ways and the problems they've experiences which have dominated their lives and the different ways they've handled all that life has done to them.--Some great dialog, simply beautiful. No, the words aren't pretty, but the phrases really grab your attention—and several are really quite amusing. "What's that? Pills? You're pills are in the cart? Well what can I do? Now aren't you sorry you didn't let me pass through your golf course? And now you're gonna die wearing that stupid little hat."Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:--The music and cinematography are about average, nothing overly special.--The "desk cop out to solve one last mystery" does feel kind of cliché, however, Robert Duvall carries the character extremely well—and is immensely likable. Both main characters are done so well that part of me rooted for one and part of me rooted for the other. Perhaps, in the end… maybe they could "get each other…?"The Bad:--Like I said, this really feels like a film to grant some strength and pride to white guys as well as sympathize with them. I've personally had my own "screwing over by the system," so this film still resonates with me. But a lot of people will just be annoyed by the message and tale.The Ugly:--Some possible stereotyping going on here and there. Nothing major.--That Nazi is quite a fellow. Quite a slimy fellow.Memorable Scene:--"But I want to order breakfast""I'm sorry, but we stopped serving breakfast a few minutes ago."Acting: 9/10 Story: 9/10 Atmosphere: 8/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Character Development: 9/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 9/10 (it's hard to do gunshots wrong, nothing major) Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 (nothing to note) Violence/Gore: 6/10 (some violence, no gore) Dialogue: 10/10 Music: 6/10 Direction: 9/10 Cheesiness: 1/10 Crappiness: 0/10 Overall: 9/10I really enjoy this film, pretty much everything about it is entertaining and eye-catching. But then, hey, I'm a white male with a problem with "the system" these days. So of course it appeals to me. I'll recommend it, but be warned, it's a good movie but not for everyone. It's kind of a "dude flick" for disenfranchised, angry white guys. Top notch performances from Douglas and Duvall. For the most part, women may not care for it.(www.ResidentHazard.com)

The great train chase would perhaps be a better and more suiting title for this movie. The movie is for most part set in a train engine and involved the Buster Keaton in the pursuit of another stolen train by the Union army, during the American Civil War.You would think that a movie that's mostly set in a moving train engine would become tiresome after a while and jokes would start to repeat itself. But it's amazing all the stuff they came up with. What is it with Buster Keaton and trains? There also is one great long sequences involving a train in his earlier movie "Our Hospitality".It's a really creative comedy, with always some surprising unexpected insane moments in it. It's way more than just some other slapstick routines. The movie also obviously caused more than most other silent comedy, made during the same era. As a matter of fact the movie actually features the single most expensive shot of the entire silent movie era in it.Buster Keaton himself also once again performances all of his stunts. It aren't his biggest or most spectacular looking stunts but just as dangerous nevertheless.The story was fun and interesting, also since it's partly based on true events during the Civil War. There of course aren't that many Civil War comedies in general, so in that regard this movie already is an original one. The set back of the movie enhances the story, that of course however does not form the most important aspect of the movie.This was Buster Keaton's own personal favorite and it also really is one of his best movies!9/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I just want to ask if there is any evidence that prisoners of the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese army were forced to play Russian Roulette?I deliberately avoided this film because of this plot device.How many tours did the Michael character serve? Do you know that normally, enlisted soldiers or draftees served one tour for one year. If someone served more, it meant the person was a career professional. This was not a good way to run a war, but it was the way it was. So, when considering a character who served for several years, what is one to conclude? There we have a war lover and a bad war.There are better, more accurate films about Vietnam war that raise significant moral issues: Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now (more a fable but has some very real impressions).

I Like Denzel Washington. I like Horror Films. I like suspense. I hated the Bone Collector. Why? This film basically lacked all the elements that it was advertised to have. This movie is compared to Seven and Silence of the Lambs! Who are we kidding? The Bone Collector uses sloppy special effects and terrible acting. I didn't understand why Washington and Jolie liked each other, it seemed they were at each other's thoats, and then suddenly she was molesting him! Isn't there some kind of law against this. This is one of those movies that I saw (with my mom no less) that I spent more time looking at my watch than at the movie screen. Unfortunatly, I can't find in terrible errors, the movie was just boring and made little sense.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film start to finish. Easily the best low budget sci-fi horror comedy film I've ever watched.As absurd as it looks on the surface, it quickly takes on a sense of believability as the very solid characters are introduced. They are three dimensional and evolve in the course of the film.The neighborhood seems real, gritty and violent. The bad guys who become heroic are actually bad, not misunderstood.The creatures are oddly believable, well designed and reasonably motivated. They are animals behaving like animals and able to die like animals, not super human aliens or zombies. Terry Notary (choreographer, movement coach: creature movement, etc.), who has been involved with many big budget movies, injects and extra degree of reality to these shark mouth, wolfy gorilla looking predators. Love the teeth.The film is nicely spiced with a little social commentary, satire, stoner comedy, neighborhood dynamics and lots of fun.For those who care, there is some gore but more often implied, as with splashes of blood from off camera.While you may not love it like I did, you have to at least enjoy it.

Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale)is a con artist who, together with his partner-in-crime sexy Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), was conscripted by over-eager FBI agent Richie diMaso (Bradley Cooper) to hatch a complicated con to trap crooked politicians, including New Jersey mayor Carmel Polito (Jeremy Renner). In the meantime, Irving has to keep his incendiary wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) on a leash or else his plot will be blown wide open.Everything about this movie is overblown and over the top, so downright entertaining. I enjoyed watching this film about con artists out- conning each other. There was so much fun watching the out-of-this- world hairstyles and over-acting of each of the main cast (all Oscar pedigreed), so unlike anything we have seen them in. Christian Bale had gotten so much out of his Batman shape for this role as the Jewish conman with the elaborate comb-over hairdo. Amy Adams was no Princess Giselle in her constantly cleavage-revealing dresses. It was quite a hoot seeing Bradley Cooper in hair curlers, going more bananas than his role in The Hangover. Too bad there was too little of Jeremy Renner in his teased-up bouffant hairstyle.The best performer here is Jennifer Lawrence in a supporting role that is not directly within the main plot, yet she does so well to steal the thunder from her other co-stars by being so audacious and wild. This girl is really so versatile. It is no wonder that she is already being touted by critics to be the "next Meryl Streep"! This is another quirky masterpiece from the director of "The Silver Linings Playbook", David O. Russel. If you like great camp, this is the film to catch.

The story is amazing and inspirational yet I would rate the movie as good not close to great. What the script lacked was imagination and a story arch. Another disappointing failing was any attempt at character development. With such rich source material it is very disappointing. The potential was for so much greater. I was rooting for this movie! The movie represented simply a telling of events that occurred in this man's life. Perhaps the pressure was great to fit it all in but left a "matter of fact" feeling of the telling. Despite the movie's shortcomings the acting was solid and photography beautifully done. Overall the true life story of Louie is so inspirational that at the end of the movie the theatre erupted in applause which spoke more to the life lived than the quality of the movie.

In the near future, boxing involves bouts between two massive robots in an equally massive ring. Charlie (Hugh Jackman), a former human boxer himself, is having a bit of trouble with cash flow despite having no problem getting all of his robots destroyed in the ring. But his struggles continue out of the ring, where he is forced to take care of Max (Dakota Goyo), the son he never wanted. By chance, Max discovers a fully built robot, Atom, discarded in a junkyard. He retrieves it, and convinces Charlie to help train him to fight in the big leagues.What works for and against Real Steel is that there is not much else to the plot after this. Much like the recent travesty Warrior, the set-up and execution is in the synopsis. Knowing what we do about film history and genre tropes, I imagine you can figure out exactly what comes next piece by piece. And as much as I enjoyed watching the film, the predictability hangs over it like a plague. It really is Rocky with robots, and it makes very little attempt to try anything new. It finds a niche very early on, and just keeps hoping it will not break. So while everyone loves an underdog story, it may be a little hard to swallow the film doing everything we have seen way too many times before.What Real Steel does do differently, and what I enjoyed immensely, was how it connected and reimagined human boxing with robot boxing. The sweat and smell of the unsanctioned underground leagues, the spectacle of the pay per view spectacular in a live arena; it seemed silly watching the trailers and thinking of robots taking the place of humans in the ring. But it is so naturally executed here that you wonder why you doubted the film in the first place. Every precaution is taken to reinvent and enhance the sport, to the point where it makes a case for this idea being viable in the future. Much the same goes for the technology in the film, which seems like a natural progression to where we are heading in reality. For such a silly and ridiculous concept, it seems to have its finger on the pulse of a hotbed of real life ideas. Another great element to the film is the special effects that bring the robots to life. Using a nearly seamless mix of animatronics and CGI, we watch as these robots bridge the gap between fantasy and reality. They look, feel and act real, managing to beat the life out of one another in one scene, and then silently emote without the use of any real expressions. While an early scene involving a bull looks awful, every scene afterwards just looks better and better. I had a hard time distinguishing the puppets from the CGI, it is that well conveyed on- screen. And really, when was the last time a big budget film like this went with animatronics over full blown CGI? Thankfully, Jackman is also one of the best things about Real Steel. The trailers suggested he was playing the character very loose and over-the- top, but he is surprisingly rather reserved for the most part. He plays a washed up has-been very well, and manages to really make the audience feel for him – even when he is being a reprehensible jerk. He brings the charisma and edge to the role that he has perfected as Wolverine, and helps rise above the material he is given. He is given a lot of silly stuff to do no doubt, but he smiles and glides through it with ease. As Max, Goyo brings gentleness and naivety to the role that really sells the idea of robots boxing. Seeing the wonder in his eyes is like watching our own wonder playing out on-screen. He is a more than capable child actor, and I look forward to seeing him light up screens in the future. Evangeline Lilly, as Charlie's love interest Bailey, is good in small doses, but is not afforded the time or development to really be anything other than a plot device. Anthony Mackie is great as the bookie Finn, and even if the role is completely one note and silly, Kevin Durand does pretty good as Charlie's nemesis Ricky.What I found really took away from the film, was the focus on the broken family unit between Charlie and Max. When they are apart and interacting with others or alongside Atom, the film works increasingly well. But when the family struggles start being the focal point of scenes, it just feels pushed and rushed, as if it was an afterthought to add a bit more drama to the film. Jackman does what he can to salvage these scenes, but they just became progressively more irritating and more predictable as the film goes on. I wanted to ignore them and enjoy watching the boxing robots, but even thinking back to these scenes now, they just seem overdone and out of place. Less would have been better, and perhaps would have assisted in a lot less of Danny Elfman's surprisingly atrocious and annoyingly upbeat score.I wanted to enjoy Real Steel a lot more than I actually did. Jackman is great, and the ideas at the core of the film about robot boxing and technology are more astounding than I would like to give the film credit for. But its inherent predictability, not to mention a forced family friendly redemptive storyline, drag the film into a mediocrity it does not deserve. This should have been a really fun movie about a ridiculous idea that turned out surprisingly well. Instead, it is a film that struggles between the idea of what it is and what it wants to be, and is never able to truly balance itself out.7/10.(An extended review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

This film is one of my favourites of Tim Burten's, and it is amazing to see Johnny Depp and Tim work together as they both as director and actor make films truly magical. The film is about a man who was being made by a very old professor, yet unfortunately he dies before finishing Edward the man made man. Edward lives in a creepy old mansion at the top of the village and has to live with scissors as hands, (handy for gardening not so good for everyday things). A woman in the village one day takes Edward to her home and looks after him, it's all happy until he falls in love with her daughter (Winona Ryder) and does things he regrets. This film did make me cry at the end as it was such a wonderful fairytale, written and acted marvellously, and starred my favourite actor Johnny Depp. The ending was beautiful, sad and happy all together, which is what I think made it excellent. This film I would say is a comical, romantic fairytale and I do recommend it anybody with a liking to great films.

They gutted and castrated the Bond genre with this film.Save your money and see a real Bond movie on DVD! This movie, this Bond, and these characters are losers. Thank goodness they cut out most of the inane quips and toned down the cartoon-like characters in this Bond movie...it's the only saving grace for this movie! Sexy, not! Passionate,not! Great Villains, not! Femme Fatales, not!I'll take Colin Farrell and a Mojito any day over saggy, craggy, dour, sour Daniel Craig.A truly sad day for the Bond legacy!

This is the funniest film I have seen in a long time. It's a strange film in a way as it's billed as a Rom-Com but is far edgier and much funnier than that. I am not a particularly big fan of Steve Carrel but here he excels as a man left bewildered when his wife admits to an affair. What follows is slightly surreal as he is taken under his wing by the charming Rylan Gosling and taught about how to woo women. The results are hilarious as both men change the way they think over the course of the following months. An excellent cast featuring great performances from Gosling, Julianne Moore and the impressive Emma Stone make the very funny script come to life. This is a Rom-Com that no guy can be ashamed of watching and liking and the best of it's kind since Four Weddings and a Funeral.

Well, hasn't Orlando Bloom cornered the market in adventurous blacksmiths!!! Kingdom of Heaven is a really enjoyable film as long as you don't allow yourself to linger long on the historical or the credible. You are asked to suspend credulity as soon as Godfrey de Ibelin arrives on the scene and frequently afterwards - how does a village blacksmith become so soon both a master swordsman and a master of war as he is shown in the siege of Jerusalem? The film clearly is posting many messages for the present - both Christian and Muslim camps have hotheads who are ideologically hostile to the other, and unfortunately for the present George Bush is more like Guy de Lusignsan than like Baldwin IV.The film is very balanced between Christian and Muslim - which no doubt explains why both camps are unhappy with it. What the film really tells us, I think, is that in the search for God and meaning within the world in which we live, the answers that the established religions offer are all unsatisfactory. Balian is an honest, and perhaps too pure, hero who in the end cannot respect the reality of either Christianity or Islam.The film is broadly sympathetic to the historical reality of the period in which it is set, but the nonsensical democratic touches during the scenes in the defence of Jerusalem are wildly anachronistic.However, viewed as a stirring action movie (in the same way that one has to view Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", for the same reasons) this really is a very enjoyable film. And the cinematography and special effects are outstanding.

This is a great film topped off by Mickey Rourke's outstanding performance. It's about a wrestler who is forced to stop his career because he might die of a heart attack. The film shows him struggling to find something else in life he likes doing. He then meets an exotic dancer who he falls in love with who is also ready to start a new life. His acting performance is definitely one of the more iconic ones of the last couple decades. The movie is about his struggle to move on with life and his new found girlfriend and his daughter both give him courage to move on and we can sympathize with him. The ending is ambiguous and it leaves room for discussion so the viewer can decide whether ending he prefers. I'm not going to spoil the ending but it makes us think if he made the right or wrong choice so I appreciate the choice the film made. I don't think younger audiences would be able to relate with Randy "The Ram" because it contains some deep concepts but older people would likely be able to relate with him and enjoy the movie more. If you like wresting and want to see a moving story about passion then this movie is for you.

I am relatively sure they were hoping to do a sequel or two for this film, however no sequels were ever forthcoming and this film is pretty much a forgotten film of the 90's whose main claim to fame is the fact it knocked off Titanic from the number one spot at the movies. That does not mean your film is good, I do believe all the guys got together and said to themselves "This looks tolerable" and they poured into theaters just to sink the ship. I am surprised the score is so low here, granted the score I am giving it is not much higher, but I have to say some of the visuals were quite good and there were some interesting things going on in this movie. Just way to much in the plot, it went here and there and crammed a whole lot of stuff in the film making it a bit to long and to jumbled. The film is about a family that gets lost in space thanks to the dastardly Dr. Smith played by Gary Oldman who is the only really interesting character in the film. Everyone else is bland with the exception of Matt LeBlanc who is just horribly miscast in an action type role which he neither has the acting ability or looks to do. The best thing about this film is the effects as the are very good, especially considering when this film was made. It just needed a whole lot of work on the plot, a bit of simplifying rather than the "let's throw it all in" approach they seemed to take with this one. Still, it did knock out Titanic, before it quickly sank into obscurity.

This is a masterpiece of Japanese cinema; one of the greatest films ever produced.The seven samurai here battle with great honor and greater humility. One exception: "Kikuchiyo" who was loud, boisterous and brazen. But he died a hero and was mourned just the same.We feel for these characters - the seven, as well as the villagers (such as "Manzo") because the acting and directing allow us to. The use of the camera and its superb acting has made this movie fondly remembered for over fifty years.208 minutes may sound like a lot of time to spend on a film, but it merits a complete viewing.Akira Kurosawa is a genius filmmaker; and if you only see one Kurosawa film, you cannot go wrong here.If you liked this: Rent FIRES ON THE PLAIN (1959). This is a film about a soldier in the Japanese Imperial Army in 1945, when prospects of Japan's success look all too bleak. It was directed by Kon Ichikawa. It's now on DVD.

Given the track record of Martin McDonagh as an incredibly gifted playwright, I expected In Bruges to be smarter and funnier, particularly smarter. McDonagh does have a way with words, but it seems to have eluded him in this film, which works better as a concept. Maybe it would work better as a play, but as a film it feels half-baked. I see that he is referencing Waiting for Godot and he's playing with his usual mashup of violence and humor, and he is paying homage to old, masterful movies like Touch of Evil and Vertigo, but the whole thing feels really forced and rather soulless. I am willing to suspend my disbelief and swallow that the wonderful Brendan Gleeson and the incredibly uneven Colin Farrell are hit men on holiday, but why? They really seem to be the nicest chaps, with no edge of meanness. Lovable thugs who work for a fastidious thug, played rather maniacally, by Ralph Fiennes, whose performance over the phone is actually funnier than when he actually shows up. It is nice to see him in a comic role and sporting a perfect thuggish accent, but he is not believable either. And the actors are saddled with stupid lines, which is really surprising coming from Mr. McDonagh. Gleeson is divine as a hit-man perfectly content to spend some downtime sightseeing. He revels in the calm. I love Brendan Gleeson and if there is a reason to see this movie, he is it. Farrell is all over the place, and trying really hard to be funny, which may not be entirely his fault. He is best when he feels guilty and dissolves into tears, but otherwise he mugs for the camera like there is no tomorrow. Jeremie Renier, who has starred in the distinguished films of the Dardenne brothers, L'Infant and La Promesse, has a bit part here. This always bothers me, that when the big foreign production comes to town, the best actors in that country end up playing stupid bit parts. Such is the pecking order. There is a subplot involving a racist dwarf, and fat Americans, so you know the movie is aiming low. Some American critics have vociferously objected to the violence, which is really beyond me, considering Hollywood is still churning out violent porn like Rambo. The violence is over the top in concept, as Farrell kills human beings that are taboo to kill. And this may be the point of the movie, that the principles of criminals are bogus, and killing anybody is wrong, period. But it's a point we expected Martin McDonagh to make with his accustomed panache, not all dumbed down.

Despite all of James Camerons' films being brilliant, Terminator 2 surpasses them all. This film has a combination of incredible action sequences, amazing special effects (for the time), and a powerful human struggle.The film continues with the story of Sarah Connor. She has become so determined and strong. Dealing with her worst fear and learning to trust it is just one of the many powerful elements in this movie. Terminator 2 maintains the same dark atmosphere from the original but it deals with more issues concerning the future and the characters have a stronger force behind them. The action is bigger, faster and more intense. Terminator 2 is a timeless, sci-fi classic.

David Lynch surprise a lot of us with the story of John Merrick (a great John Hurt), a Circus freak of the XIX century which has his face and body totally deformed, to the point that people frightens when they see him. He lives with his "owner", Bytes (Freddie Jones), a really mean man, who gets paid for showing him in a cage, in a vulgar and horrid spectacle. But one successful Doctor (Anthony Hopkins, sober and good as always) in London finds John in a Carnival and he wants to help him.At the beginning, the only thing he wants is to show the man (just like the other man used to do) in an anatomy class for doctors, but once he get to know John a little bit, he gets a room for him at the Hospital and he protect him from Bytes, from whom he had been stolen.At first, John seemed to be dumb and stupid, but after a while, we noticed that he wasn't any of those things: he can talk (he has some difficulties but he can) and he can also read (not a common skill at the time). But what really shocks Doctor Treeves and us is the fact that John is the most pure and gentle man we could ever imagine. He is incredibly kind and sensitive, and he feels that he had found a friend in the Doc.The fact is that John became very famous in the city just for being deformed and living at the Hospital, and with him became Doctor Treeves very popular.And here is one of the keys of the whole film: Dr. Treeves ask himself whether he's good or bad, because he understands that he made the same that Bytes, he won something by showing the monster.But what I think is the most important element is the fact that John could be the purest person in the world, gentle, kind and polite, but he is so extremely ugly, that people can't really love him. I know this could sound crazy in some way, but I beg you to be honest and ask yourself if you could. Remember this scene in which an old couple visit him in his isolated room: remember the expression in their faces... he can be the best man ever, but he's still a monster and we suffer every time we see him.So, we get to see that there are good people (like Merrick or Treeves or the other freaks from Circus), there are bad people (Bytes and some that I rather not mention) and there is also ugly people. But maybe we are some kind of a mix of all this...The plot is very good. The acting is good as well (it is really funny how a lot of us, including me, say that John Hurt performance is great, in spite he is wearing a mask and a lot of make up from the beginning to the end, and he has almost no expression in it!) and this is until now, the best movie i've seen made by David's Lynch peculiar brain.

Ben Affleck's 'The Town' is indeed a Damn Good Film. It's gripping, superbly directed, greatly acted & wonderfully photographed. Ben Affleck indeed has come out with a winner! 'The Town' is more of a complicated love-story. It's really not a story of a few robbers, nor about a man trying to clean up his deeds. It's a complicated love-story, where there so many obstacles around it. Ben Affleck goes into the zone of 'The Town' and makes sure he makes a memorable fare.About a 124 minutes, the film never really loses you. The only moment when the screenplay gets a bit boring is in the middle, but makes up for it with a dramatic and captivating climax. Affleck rocks as a Storyteller, no doubts! He's made a fine film... and in each frame there is a visible stamp of the filmmaker. Bravo! A Special Mention to Robert Elswit, who has photographed the film with flourish.In the acting department, Affleck, as an actor, also is in top form. One can easily state this performance amongst his best efforts. Jon Hamm is so natural in his part. Rebecca Hall is excellent. Blake Lively leaves a mark. Ditto for Chris Cooper. But the show truly belongs to Pete Postlethwaite & Jeremy Renner, who play their parts with unmatchable ease.On the whole, visit this 'Town'... despite the violence around it. Recommended!

This was easily the worst Peter Pan movie I have ever seen. Other then the first 10min of minor rebellion against a corrupt orphanage manager, Peter then becomes a whiny, oblivious, idiotic, and utterly incompetent little boy who does nothing worthy of respect the rest of the movie. Literally his only contribution to the story and victory is being BORN. His parents were fighters and courageous, and a 'prophesy' inspires others to fight. His incompetence gets dozens of 'tribal natives' killed and possibly thousands of 'fairies' killed before he stops whimpering and crying and stands up, and then does nothing but literally stand up and let his birth gift 'inspire' others. Requiring no personal character, courage, hard work or skill. Hook and Tiger Lilly did all of the work, all of the fighting, motivational speeches, and sometimes literally dragged Peter out of danger that he was incapable of walking himself out of. Hook and Tiger Lilly literally had to drag Pan through the story line.

If there is one glaring problem of this otherwise very good adaption of Fitzgerald's most famous novel, the post-production music soundtrack editors are the guilty party. For about the first half of the film, the party scenes which provide the backdrop to this story of the Lost Generation and moneyed inequity during 1920's New York is inundated with super sounds of the 21st century, replete with Rap and Hip-Pop. It's as if the filmmakers were afraid that using music from the era, called the Roaring 20's and the Jazz Age for obvious reasons, wouldn't be "intense" enough for modern audiences. The music from this era, which saw the rise of Jazz from its beginnings in New Orleans and into white culture, is some of the most intense party music ever written and recorded. Instead the filmmakers balked and settled on music which would have never existed in the post World War I era. Duke Ellington, Paul Whiteman, Fletcher Henderson and the immortal Louis Armstrong could bellow on acoustic instruments probably with bigger and more robust sounds than any generic hip-pop musician of today. The sounds accompanying the popping of champagne bottles will be forever fused together. Fitzgerald even wrote a book called "Tales of the Jazz Age" not "Tales of the Hip-Pop Age".That being said, aside from the questionable music choices, the film is a reasonably good adaption of a story which is nearly un-filmable but has become the 20th-century American novel by which all others are judged. The stand out is without question Leonardo DiCaprio who almost single-handedly saves the entire project. In fact it may be the best DiCaprio performance to date, possibly worthy of an acting nomination. The rest of the cast is strong as well particularly Tobey Maguire as the straight man Nick Carraway.The movie begins almost like a music video with lots of quick cuts and slow-mo's to the rap and hip-pop which doesn't fit very well with the era it is trying to portray. However, about a third way through, the acting begins to hit its stride and the silly pop music finally starts to wain. Although the story references the crazy parties of the era, it's not about the parties per se, but about the strange love triangle between Daisy Buchanan and her two loves, Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan.Jay Gatsby is the "new money" on the block who holds lavish parties where all the elites of New York come to West Egg to douse themselves with champagne (currently illegal, but what the hell), splash around in swimming pools and throw tinsel in the air for reasons not completely explained except possibly to see if it sticks on the many statues on Gatsby's estate. In this film, Gatby's house rings of an Italian manor house a la the Renaissance which might make a member of the Medicis take notice. The narrator is Nick Carraway, living in a humbler house near Gatsby's servants' entrance, who watches but does not participate actively in the events which follow. The Eyes of Dr Eckleburg, like the eyes of God, are there on a poster in the Valley of Ashes, the industrial and working class area between New York City and the suburbs of East and West Egg. The story concerns how "Nouveau Riche" Gatsby plans to court his former lover, Daisy Buchanan from the clutches of the Old Money, Tom Buchanan, who is probably worth the equivalent of about 9 Windsors.Despite a number of reservations, such as the music soundtrack, the strange book ends with Carraway telling his story to a psychiatrist at some kind of half-way house (in the book he is disappointed but not mentally disturbed), and the character of Jordan significantly reduced, the adaption is reasonably good. And the performance by DiCaprio as the anxious ladder-climber who wants desperately to fit into the world of elite money, is outstanding. DiCaprio finds the delicate balance between friendliness, phoniness, and ultimate anxiety which is what makes Gatsby one of the quintessential tragic heroes of American literature. His may be the best portrayal of Gatsby ever on screen thus far. Carey Mulligan also makes a fine Daisy, who is not a bad person but only rather flighty and longing for love and fun. A recommended viewing.

Legion is good movie for what it is. Of course there are some ups and down but every movie has those moments. Most of the users have been very negative towards this film while I find it to be a very refreshing film. Notably, there are only two other films that tackle this genre. One being Demon Knight and the other being The Prophecy. Both of them were good on their own merits and I stand by what I say when I say so does Legion. 5.1 over marks underrating this film. At least a 6.5 would have been nice. Now, moving on to the aspects of the film that I feel makes it stand out.1. It's not like most of the main stream horror movies these days where most of the elements comprises of cheap scares, skin and awful remakes.2. The story is not top notch but it is interesting. What makes it a bit weak is that the writers tried a pilot project that had the potential but were unable to flesh it out. Still the story passes the mediocre line.3. The action scenes are executed with dexterity. Not too shaky nor too fast. The main thing is that the viewer gets a thriller without eye strain.4. The acting was not bad. Some actors were enthusiastic and some apathetic but it really does not hold down this film. Not to mention, I've seen worse.All in all, I have no idea what people expected. It's not the LOTR or Dark Knight. It's just conventional horror trying it's best.

"Where am I?" The first line blows away my mind each time I watch this movie. I had to watch Memento several times to understand what was going on in the movie. The story plot is intriguing and complicated. Yet, there is a pattern to it once you get a hold of it. I personally think that it adds immense depth to the movie. The greatest thing about this movie is that each time you watch it, you always get a different meaning out of it. Ever since I have seen this movie, I have shown it to my friends, and all of them enjoyed seeing this. I often find myself watching this movie when I am sad or caught up with stressful things that happened recently. The premise of this movie is that main character, otherwise seeming ordinary, has this "condition" where he cannot make a new memory since his accident. But the movie is about more than that. It's hard not to reflect ourselves while watching the character struggles to grasp the truth and to find who killed his wife. Memento is also about moving on from the painful past and letting things go, which are two of hardest tasks we ordinarily go through each day. The wall between our memory and imagination is, in fact, very thin. Director Nolan does an excellent job in portraying that small wall, and suggesting that we all have this power and will when it comes to our own memory. Our memory is fragile and uncertain, yet it still exists in a certain form. Memento shows how we have this beautiful ability to recall and recreate the past events. Such creative power defines us as human, and as a result of that, a sequence of events turn into a journey of ultimate truth. What he finds at the end of this movie might be something that we are all seeking for in life. When you are uncertain about your life, Memento is a great movie to watch and remind yourself about the complexity of your own memory and mind. The movie often leaves me with the high appreciation for memory. What our mind can do is quite remarkable. Although Nolan's Inception was bigger scale and had more actions in it, Memento remains to be my favorite Nolan movie.

When I first heard another origin story was being crafted for the X-Men franchise I instantly felt weary. It has only been 2 years since Wolverine got a chance at his very own prequel and it failed for me on many different levels. Leaving a profound feeling of an ailing franchise refusing to let itself and a business looking to suck every last dollar out of the consumer's veins before heading the way of Atlantis. It brings great relief to say with the fullest confidence that not only does this movie reinvigorate the X-Men movies with a prequel reboot it also redeems itself on its last two predecessors.Summary First Class aptly set during the political and social unrest of the 1960's gives director (Vaughn) a chance at showing this era in a very stylish way. Dealings with the real world event that was the October crisis of 1962 ( Cuban Missile crisis) which is used as a visually stunning but at times cheesy rewrite of history. However, this was merely a very cool backdrop for the climax of the movie. Sebastian Shaw (Bacon) is attempting to ignite World War 3 by pushing the sides of both governments (Soviet Union and The United States to make aggressive moves towards one another. Let me state this plainly, this is without doubt the best action in all the five movies , easily and theirs a ton of it to boot! X-Men franchise begins with the story of two very different people. Charles Xavier(McAvoy)and Eric Lehnsherr (Fassbender). Both destined to be best friends (if you've seen the original trilogy) both destined to be archenemies. With that knowledge already present the movie to succeed for me had to keep the characters interesting and make their progression from who they are to who they will be believable. Thankfully the movie doesn't miss a beat here and the situations that drive these two characters are powerful and outstandingly acted that they alone can carry this film. After two great performances by the young Professor X and Magneto the two other most well developed characters are Raven (Lawrence) and Beast(Hoult) who strive to find normalcy in their looks. This is a great component of the movie because although they start with a common goal their ideals won't remain the same (very similar to the main two characters of the film). The definition of what is beauty is constantly brought up throughout the film by the main four characters and their takes on it.Unfortunately while these four characters are great it leaves the rest of the films super heroes (and villains!) completely neglected. The films main antagonist Shaw (Bacon) is the only developed baddie in the whole thing everyone else is only cardboard with a superpower and little dialogue. Even Shaw though is merely just a man with the same vision as the soon to be Magneto which leaves him feeling cheap and recycled.The problems of characters is also prevalent on the heroes side as well. With the exception of the big four I named earlier all the other characters of the X-Men team are only given a scene or two of good characterization, in comparison to the villains though this is a treat (they actually have full sentences!).Aside from the problem of too many characters for it own good ( same problem as Wolverine Origins) and at times a cheesy plot First Class handles its development of its main four people ( Raven, Eric , Charles, and Hank) skillfully. All these people are brought back in large roles in the later X-Men films which only bolsters the strength of those films as well. The action of the movie is always awesome (Magneto comes to mind for so many reasons) and at times even awe inspiring. The action wasn't in the end the factor that kept me invested in this long movie.In the end it was the simple story of two men becoming friends who are torn apart by what they believe in desperately trying to change each other to see the world their way , while still holding a mutual respect for each other ( this works especially well when the film reaches its ultimate climax).If you liked any of the previous X-Men movies you will like this a lot. If you've never seen the others the foreshadowing of this prequel won't have the impact it has on those who have but the movie will still be good entertainment.Rating 7.8/10

the first two terminator films are classics. so this third installment had a real good chance of ruining the whole effect. but i was actually suprised. although complex, the film actually fits with the story. and it leaves with something to think about as the end credits begin to roll. it's almost profound.it's no terminator 1, how could it be. and it's not even T-2 but i was 12 then, so nothing ever could be. but it is a damn good film. the action scenes are orchestrated just as good as cameron ever could have done. the actors are fair but nothing great. nick stahl proving the best as john conner. i suppose if you step back and look at it, it is different. john conner looks different and in a way, ruins the continuation. arnie now bears no resemblance to himself from T1, which makes it difficult to relate to the past story. but what i really missed. what i really thought should have been in the movie. was that great terminator score. not just the popular one but the theme they use during the chases of T2. if they coulda put that in over the action scenes here, it would've felt more like a terminator movie.but with these flaws, it doesnt stop you from enjoying what's on the screen. a slam bam action film that provides a thoughtful ending to the classic trilogy.

I loved this movie. It was creative, and it kept my attention the whole 2.5 hours. For those of you who compare it to the book, and thus hate it, lighten up! Forget the book. You are watching a movie, and just try to enjoy that.

This modern story of a knight in shining armor just didn't do it for me the acting and story is just to childish. And I must mention that Kevin Costner disappoints again folks this guy just doesn't impress me. Whitney Houston's hit songs on the soundtrack "I Will Always Love You" and "I Have Nothing" are great but I must say Whitney your acting is much to be desired. The, Bodyguard is a movie to watch but this film is more known for the music it helped make popular.

I didn't had any expectation from the movie because I didn't knew what to expect from such a huge cast of talented actors in a superhero franchise. Any movie running simultaneously in two ages is difficult for both the audience and the director, but Wolverine guides us through it quite well. Although it had most of the mutants, but Wolverine, Prof X, Magneto, Beast and Raven has the most screen time. Rest are seen fighting the sentinels in the Future(or present if u say so). Talking about the sentinels(Future version) they were really the deadly mutant killing machine after the sentinels of the Matrix series, which were much more menacing. I may say that after the successful reboot of the X men series in X men First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past continues the legacy. I had a good time watching it as I am crazy about these kind of stuff and enjoyed the Sunday morning.

Thor was arguably the toughest of the Avengers characters to realize in live action. Tony Stark, Steve Rogers and Bruce Banner may be special, but they're also human and their adventures take place here on terra firma. Thor on the other hand is a Norse God from a far flung world that none of us can relate to. Thankfully Marvel and director Kenneth Branagh were up to the task.While it has a fairly modest scope, 'Thor' benefits greatly from its focus on character. There's a journey here that helps us to connect with the mythic character. I also feel the love story, not hot or passionate, but tender and sweet, really adds a strong element of emotion and helps raise the stakes. It also features the MCU's best villain to date in Loki. A hero is only as good as his villain, and Loki takes 'Thor' to another level.While not a classic, 'Thor' is a solidly entertaining origin story and a serviceable cog in the Marvel machine.

It was the most powerful connection, I think, between a structure and a city and a fictional character that the 20th century had ever seen… Of all the "King Kong" films that exist, Peter Jackson's new Kong is, without any doubt, the best… The film won 3 Oscars, for sound editing, sound mixing, and visual effects… It is set in 1933 where America was facing economic troubles unlike any seen before… Jackson wanted 1933 New York to be very, very authentic… He recreates a chaotic, crazy, busy city bustling and vibrant… The streets were absolutely jam packed with cars, trams, buses, crowded with hawkers and thousands of people … The Empire State Building had just been built… Jackson goes in the heart of New York and describes the Depression by showing private security forces raiding buildings; mass evictions of people who simply could not pay their rent; people winding up as squatters; and long line of people waiting to be fed…He gives a little hint about the Prohibition: police busting up an illegal still; Carl Delham getting a box of whiskey to take upon his trip and it's labeled "Lemonade." And oddly enough, he presents the end of Prohibition, when we see some liquor advertising at the climax of the movie that wasn't there at the beginning… Jackson also introduces vaudeville... Vaudeville was a variety show, a string of acts put together to form a complete bill of entertainment… Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) was one of vaudeville good-looking actress who loses her job due to the lack of money… Skull Island was another very important location for Jackson… The amount of imagination and creativity that went into the ideas behind it is quite amazing… The zoology, the flora and fauna, the cultural history of that impossible island is thrilling… It was, indeed, a huge work to rebuild a hellish place of inexhaustible mysteries… We are talking about small group of desperate souls eking out the barest existence possible… Natives who have come to worship a giant gorilla—named "Kong" by them— as some sort of god, practicing human sacrifice to appease his anger… We are also talking about a lush jungle and tropical rain forest with giant reptiles with very large feet to cope with the uneven and broken terrain of the island… We are talking not only about dinosaurs but also beasts just as terrible, or even worse… We're talking about a natural predator trap full of rotting carcasses and scavenger creatures… We are also talking about giant, parasitic, warm-like creatures which are much more than active predators and scavengers… We are talking about perils resided not only in the depths of the island but in the skies as well, where terrifying flying creatures ruled…"King Kong" delivers a fantasy-adventure piece, with its balance of peril and romance in much the same way "Titanic" did… The romance part is not where one would expect it, but involves a beast with a beautiful and fragile creature who experience a tender if unexplained bond… And this union is the finest moment of the film… Ann looks into the ape's eyes and sees something impressionable there… And the audience notices it too… Jackson has done something emotional here… In addition to the ape's beastly character, Kong gazes at Ann and shows true, endearing traits… We are struck by his protective nature as we can understand the desires of each to protect the other… Ann can't escape this fateful meeting that changes everything… It's as if her whole life has been a prelude to this moment…Jackson's "King Kong" is a grandiose thrilling adventure, sufficiently magical and colorful whether it's reverently watching a sunset, or doing some ice-skating …

Get out surprises us by its strong and different plot.The leading actors has shown mercy to their roles. Direction is just excellent. The movie has some funny moments and has deals alongside the thrilling scenes. Overall a good must watch movie. The locations are suits the movie and always makes us thrilled.

"Oldboy" plays like a martial arts version of a Franz Kafka novel. Dae-su Oh is a businessman in Korea who wakes up one day to find himself imprisoned in what appears to be a cheap hotel room from which he cannot escape (any time spent in a Motel 6 can elicit the same impression). He doesn't know why he's there or who put him there, but he spends his fifteen-year-long "sentence" watching TV and perfecting his fighting skills, the better to exact revenge on those responsible when he finally gets out. When that day comes, he sets out to unravel the mystery of his captivity, seeking out clues with the help of a sweet, sad young waitress he meets on his first day of freedom."Oldboy" is an imaginative, high-energy film that keeps the viewer guessing right up to its final moments. Shot through with dark humor, stylish directorial touches, and cartoon-style (albeit fairly graphic) violence, the film is deliberately disorienting in the beginning, the better to approximate the confused psychological state of its protagonist. But eventually the plot points come fully into focus, and the film doesn't fall victim to that dreaded Third Act curse which has been the undoing of so many other mystery films of recent years.Fun stuff.

This movie was at MOST, average. And that's only if you're willing to ignore the incredibly horrible plot, and all the holes therein.The part that makes it at least somewhat tolerable is the special effects. They had a great team on this one. Now... how come they couldn't put those people, or people like them, to work on the plot?The basic idea is simple: A race of aliens come to earth to conquer it, and the human race fights back.The problem with this film is HOW the humans fight back. Using 50 year old alien technology, Jeff Goldblum, a satellite TV repairman, creates a computer virus to shut down the mothership's shields. Apparently, this "Advanced" race of alien beings use Macintosh Computers, never upgrade their software, or change their passwords, or try to communicate with ships that are trying to dock, before allowing them to dock.Then there's the Hillbilly crop duster, played by Randy Quaid, who jumps himself into an F-18 Hornet, and is able to fly it, quite well, right away. I don't care if he was in the Korean War, or whatever... you don't just sit yourself into an advanced tactical fighter, without previous training and an understanding of all the controls, and start flying right away.

In "Atlantis: The Lost World," historian Milo Thatch leads a crew of the world's greatest archaeologists and explorers in a search for the lost city of Atlantis. They travel through the depths of the dangerous sea aboard the submarine Ulysses. Only expecting to unearth ruins and artifacts, the team is astonished to find the ancient city still thriving with life.This is one of my all-time favorite animated Disney features. It's a masterful blend of Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth." "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is an adventure tale mixed with everything you could ever want in a fantasy film. There are elements of science fiction, mythology, and mystery all combined to form a highly exciting and entertaining tale.Steampunk fans will find something to enjoy in the film, as well. All sorts of interesting advanced mechanical technology appear that shouldn't exist in the early 1900s. It has a "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" vibe to it as well, which isn't surprising since comic book artist Mike Mignola was one of the production designers for the movie.Any fan of hand-drawn animation and Jules Verne will love the blend of science fiction, action, and fantasy you'll get from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire."

I went to a screening last night. Spielberg did a great job of weaving events of Munich with re-imagined events of agents plotting their attacks. Eric Bana's character has a lot of depth and his acting his excellent, plenty of emotion and his range is amazing. What his character goes through not only as a man, but as a man on a mission, with a family, and the allegiance to his country makes his mind go through many tumultuous stages. Various underlying characters do a great job, as members of his team. The next Bond, Daniel Craig's character is a bit showy, Matthieu Kassovitz is virtually unrecognizable, and Ciaran Hinds character remains composed.As for any stance regarding Jewish/Palestinian comments that Spielberg/Tony Kushner/Eric Rogh make, I think they are taking real events that happened in our lifetime, some of which have to be re-imagined. They realize that peace in this region is still an ongoing process, and who knows when this may occur, but it is something we can wish for. It is interesting that there is dialogue that reflects this ideology, and yet today, the same situation remains in the Middle East.

"Laputa" is an engaging film that really illustrates how an animated feature should be done. As always, the imaginative Hayao Miyazaki is on track with a perfect mixture of adventure, love, bravery, and so much more. You'll really fall in love with the characters, the storyline, the scenery. Beautifully animated and well thought out, this film will be enjoyed by many for a long time to come.Highly recommended.

First off all,If you want to watch only action movie,the movie is good choice but ı don't say same thing for story because story is bad.After The Maze Runner,Daniel O'Bryant want different style movie but it's not correct choice.Actors play well but ı say again''Story isn't enough''.It is only action movie.

OK, so this film is considered by a bunch of people to be completely terrible, and while I can agree that there are a bunch of flaws, I wouldn't define this film as god-awful.A lot of things are thrown into the mix only to be resolved by some sort of deus ex machina. To put it short, this is just filler leading up to The Avengers.Robert Downey Jr. is the perfect fit for Tony Stark. He proved himself in the original Iron Man and here, while this film isn't quite as good as the first, he still carries the charm with him, even if Stark is caught in a battle of his own self-destruction.Sam Rockwell plays a tenacious, awkward and irritating rival to Stark in the form of Justin Hammer, another weapons developer, who tries to team up with Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko, the son of Howard Stark's business partner(?) whose revenge stems from the Stark family taking credit for the creation of the arc reactor while his family is forgotten about? It's not developed enough.Meanwhile, Tony Stark needs to find a suitable replacement element for his Arc Reactor as the palladium core is slowly killing him. As well as that, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow is shoehorned into the film, merely just to establish her presence in the Avengers, rather than HER OWN FILM, which even at the time of writing this, seven years after the film's release, there still aren't any concrete plans.The film is full of red herrings and subplots that get resolves so quickly, that it really makes you ask what was the point of including it in the film to begin with. Also, the action is very short-lived.Putting all that aside, it's cool to see Robert Downey Jr. just be himself as Tony Stark. Full of confidence and charisma that it seems completely effortless.

This is THE worst crap I have seen probably ever. It has taken over as the worst movie I have personally seen....Ben Afflect/Gigli have now been replaced at the bottom. Sorry, it's not that I can't write more about why this movie is so pathetic, it's that I won't give it that satisfaction. Trying to save you peeps 2.67 hours of your life that you won't get back. AGH! Well, apparently, I have to post 10 lines to have this published on the site. So, as others have said this movie should baffle even the simplest logical spectator as these priests come up with some of the stupidest courses of action and illogical, trite conversations. Half way through the movie I told my friend that the rest of the movie could be amazing and it would still rank as one of the most terrible films currently playing.

It was one of the best I have seen in a long time. I found myself loving and empathizing, but at the same time hating and despising the characters. This is a portrayal of what addiction (not just drug, but all addictions) can do to a person. It displays how desperate and hopeless addiction makes up. I love that it stayed gritty and unapologetic about the situations. There was no happy ending and I like that. There is no glorifying the addictions, it is real and haunting. The visuals were potent, the characters appearances deteriorated as the film progressed. The actors all did a wonderful job as they each found their characters falling deeper into the depths of insanity brought on by their own vices.

Thinking I'd never see the light of day with these tanned body, lens flared remakes Micheal Bay's production company seems to be popping out these days, " A Nightmare on Elm Street" "Friday The 13th" to name a few, comes a grisly look at a motion picture classic. The Evil Dead Remake, may fool you into believing that all its characters are dumb. But... thats where it posses you! At its core, lies one of the most cynical horror films imagined in the last 5 years. Im talking, extravagant camera work by the fantastic, Aaron Morton, great performance from a young cast, and BLOOD. Although the plot is kind of thin, the intelligent script holds everything together. A infectious thriller in some parts, a grisly horror with morbid humor sprinkled on top in others, what more can you ask for!

unlike American Pie, or Grease or anything John Hughes, this teen comedy is really a teen comedy. I am sixteen and go to a great American public school, and I actually have had some of these conversations, especially when they are in the convienient store talking about trying to hide boners.I was expecting more funny scenes at high school, instead of them trying to get liquor to a party the entire time. It was extremely funny and very crude, hit very close to home which was awesome because some of friends are going off to college and that whole feeling of not hanging out anymore in conclusion this movie is the perfect teen comedy, totally relatable they look like us, talk like us and think like us.

I've watched this movie dozens of times. I've shown it to my friends. We all agree that although some of the segments can be lacking from time to time Tim Roth makes every bit of this movie worth watching. You get 4 different peoples stories so there's a little something for everyone. There are well known and not so well known actors which makes the whole thing really enjoyable. Nothing is quite what you expect and it keeps you on your toes. Everything about this movie screams hilarity. Between fantastic choices of actors and funny and smart directors Four Rooms is one movie I have no complaints about when I show it to others. I highly recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor and for those types who like to take movies too seriously, please please go else where. This movie is for fun people only.

This film had the length of Good Fellas (3 hours) but a weak storyline which stole from Wall Street and Boiler Room. It also had a terrible sub text about drug abuse and made you sit through a pretty intense drug binge and melt down moment that was just no fun to watch at all. This was a Martin Scoresese's worst movie for sure. A drug taking thief on wall street doesn't make for a 3 hour movie. A mafia movie on the other hand does. Decaprio is as always a good lead. He is a superb actor despite his cheesy start in Titanic. I felt after seeing Boiler Room though that the penny share dealing scamming is not worth Scoresese putting his hand to.

A disappointment. The original `Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is somewhat overrated--its realistic approach is certainly ugly and shocking, but there's little elegance to it, and apart from one or two disgusting (rather than disturbing) images, we don't come away from it remembering much. This new version takes a fantastical approach rather than a literal one--it's beautifully shot, with an MTV director and the original cinematographer coming together to make a dark, gorgeous, Southern Gothic visual world. It's never quite believable--why would anyone build a house like that? why would anyone live there?--but it looks like something out of Flannery O'Connor. But nothing else about it is any good. It's ugly, all right, but not in any original way--it's just another by-the-numbers slasher flick with teens getting mowed down one at a time. They're not wisecracking teens, thank God, but they are stupid, annoying, and ill-defined ones (and I won't even talk about the movie's offensive view of rural people), and the main problem is, such un-self-consciously bad dialogue cannot survive anything but a realistic approach. See `The Blair Witch Project' for a comparison. Here, the slick production makes the awful writing all the more noticeable. The actors try their best, but the script prevents them from getting anywhere, and the camera won't let us see whether Jessica Biel is any good, because it's too preoccupied with her wet t-shirt. (R. Lee Ermey is kind of funny, but he's been doing this same character for far too long now.) There is only one moment where the movie comes close to realizing its potential--the scene where Erin stumbles into the trailer is like something out of a nightmare version of `Alice in Wonderland.' (I half-expected the baby to turn into a pig!). But it doesn't last long, and it's just one lovely dark island in an ocean of same-old, same-old. Not recommended. 4 out of 10.

The Hoover family takes a trip to California so daughter Olive (Breslin) can compete in the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant.This movie takes too long a time to get to what this is all about. That is besides telling the story of a dysfunctional family. More on that later. Where it eventually goes is to the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant in California where young daughter Olive (Breslin) will compete. Seems grandpa (Arkin) has taught Olive some new moves and no one has seen them until she is finally on stage. Without knowing what she is doing she satirizes the whole concept of child beauty pageants and tells the world what the competition is really all about. Yes, that does sound interesting, doesn't it? Remember, I said it takes too long to get here.The family: Father, Richard (Kinnear), is a failed motivational speaker who is trying to publish his 9-steps to success; Son, Dwayne (Dano), hasn't spoken to anyone in over a year and won't until he gets accepted to the USAF Academy to become a pilot; Grandpa (Arkin) is a dirty old man who lets loose with F-bombs at the drop of a hat; Wife, Sheryl (Collette), is sort of okay but is too supportive of the rest of the family when she shouldn't be; Frank (Carrell) Sheryl's brother is gay, and failed a suicide attempt and has just been released from the hospital. Olive (Breslin) is the only normal and innocent one in all this. You learn all this very early in the movie.Although billed as a comedy, it is lite-drama and there are some almost good lines in here, but to give any would give too much away and there weren't many anyway. You are not missing anything. The physical comedy is old, tired and no longer works. One would think that a dysfunctional family would garner some comedy, but not here, well, save for some okay good lines just mentioned, but cannot be divulged. And, again, you are still not missing anything. The lines were good, not great. Read my lips: you are not missing anything.The acting is fine. It's the script until the competition and even there it still needed work.The ending is what bothered me the most. By my account there wasn't one. If you watch this, you will see. And, no this doesn't open the door to a sequel. At least I hope not. They wouldn't, would they? Oh, God!

It's nice to see some a Americans who have grasped the concept of sarcasm and satire. This movie is a complete take-off of Star Trek with a twist. The Galaxy Quest show has been cancelled (unlike Star Trek) with a three year run. They now spend time appearing at conventions for all their obssessive fans, only to find that some of their "fans" are actually aliens. They are taken on a voyage to save the world as the aliens believe their show to be a documentary series rather than a serial. Tim Allen is suprisingly funny (except for his attempt at a hang-over, Signourey Weaver delicately plays the blonde feminist bimbo stealing most of the attention but Alan Rickman steals the show as the cynical English actor who is jealous of his heroic counterpart Tim Allen. The story can get overly-ambitious at making you laugh, but then again, so did Toy Story 2. Well worth the visit.

Beautifully shot, amazingly acted (even Holden seems good here) "Bridge on the River Kwai" is lush on every level---especially the script, reportedly finished by blacklisted authors. I found this film far more engaging than "Lawrence of Arabia," perhaps because the people at the core of this gem were more "human." They took human idealism to all sorts of extremes. If you haven't seen this one...what in the world are you doing on the Imdb? Sign off and head to the video store---NOW!

There are film adaptations that don't even scratch the surface of the original book; there are film adaptations that blow the book so out of proportion that it isn't even about the book any more; and then there's "The Fault in Our Stars."Having read the book prior to watching the film, I had very high expectations. Simply put, this film adaptation nails it. The screenplay doesn't copy the book word for word, but it doesn't need to. The plot, casting, setting and props are nailed to a T. And of course, as with any film adaptation, the screenplay has its own quirks but it fits so perfectly that even the most OCD of book-readers wouldn't twitch an eye over them. If you've read the book, you will definitely approve of this movie. And bring a tissue box to the theatres, you're definitely going to need it. Try not to mind all the ugly sobbing you'll hear around you ;)

This is a great movie and will absolutely get a few Oscar nods for Batman and the guy from Star Wars; the make-up and costumes was unbelievable. I honestly couldn't recognize Batman in this movie it was that good. It was a hybrid of Gladiator and Avatar but with better acting and some surprise twists I was blown away.Buy the popcorn, get the soda and take the girl out, this movie is the best of the Year. I haven't had this much fun since watching the Seahawks win the Super Bowl.Russell Wilson Rules! Batman is a great actor and the guy from Star Wars will win best actor and supporting actor. I'll see it again if I get the chance.

I sit down in the cinema with my popcorn and over priced drink hoping my friend was just being over dramatic and the film was going on to be OK to good, trailers come and go and the movie begins.The opening sets a really good atmosphere even if the guides reaction is a bit OTT, that gave me a good feeling about the film suddenly expectations and excitement grew. Unfortunately over the ten minutes that followed all that excitement would go. We meet Kristen Wigs character who for life of me can't remember her characters name (which shows how unremarkable she is) a brilliant physicist who later in the film has a laughable (not in a good way) sob story about the ghost of her neighbour and therapy as a child, turns out she and Melissa McCarthys character wrote a book about ghosts and Kristen is annoyed it's on Amazon "shocking drama". Melissa McCarthys character just comes across really snobby and unlikable, Holtz is slightly more memorable but again doesn't come across very well just really annoying rather than funny and then Patty. oh dear I feel for Leslie Jones I really do she's such a talent and to be reduced to playing a stereotype is just horrible to see. And everyone else in the film is basically stupid, unlikable or OTT. Kevin is the stupidest of them all and the characters especially McCarthys character never refrain from pointing it out which comes across as quite spitefulApart from the interview scene with Kevin the humour is awful, it's joke after joke hoping some would stick and none of them do they just fall really flat The directing is awful, felt at times like I was watching a TV movie or a student project it was that amateur. The score for the film was just as bad.And finally the CGI, I am shocked that a film with the budget it had would look that bad, it's the worst CGI I have seen in a movie for some time.In summary it's not the worst movie ever but it's by far the worst movie I've seen this year, which is such a shame, hoping to see strong women reboot a franchise and instead get boring, offensively stereotypical and occasionally spiteful women.

This is what a sensible movie is. Aamir khan has shown us that Bollywood can also make sensible movies which can also do good business on Box Office.Ishaan Awasthi (Darsheel Safary) a victim of dyslexia, in which patient has difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling. This movie shows how his parents treats him and doesn't understands him, also always compares him with his elder brother who always comes 1st in class. They also neglects him passion towards arts. When nothing works they send him to boarding School just at the age of 9.Their also he is treated the same but then their is a change in post of Art teacher and comes Aamir Khan who had also suffered from the same problem in his childhood and who is also a teacher in TULIP school. He understands him and helps him to get rid of his problem and also brings out his painting skills in front of everyone by the help of art competition.Brilliant acting Darsheel Safary and Aamir khan. They will surely bring tears in your eyes. Aamir Khan is Tom Hanks of Bollywood. what a touching movie on such topic. I hope that parents learn from this movie and never force or compare their child with others.finally I must say that a must watch for everyone.

... when viewing a movie like Equilibrium. I believe I liked movies much better when we were not subjected to self-aggrandizing Directors, Costume Designers, et.al. in the DVD commentaries.Kurt Wimmer is serious when he claims to be the proud inventor of "The Gun Kata," admitting the entire plot is dependent on this absolutely ridiculous central premise. When I first saw its explanation in the movie, I laughed out loud. I actually thought it must be a broad parody on Japanese Martial Arts, a deliberate joke. Yes, the Japanese are way too serious about their "disciplines," but nothing they do deserves this kind of joke-taken-way-too-deadly-seriously.Kurt Wimmer also marvels in his commentary about critics panning this flick. I believe he used the word "vitriolic," as if the criticism were undeservedly over the top. The only things over-the-top about this film are 1) its glorification of mindless violence, and 2) the degree to which its creators go in requesting our suspension of disbelief.P.S. I liked Christian Bale a LOT more as a child in Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun." Shame on the grown-up Bale for taking such a role here.P.P.S. I am ashamed to say I still kind of liked this film on a "mindless entertainment" level. Shame on me for being so willing to be entertained.

When I read the fifth Harry Potter I absolutely loved it. I've read certain parts probably more than twenty times. The movie was nothing like the book at all. What really annoys me and my friends is that the fifth movie didn't even suggest that during Harry's fifth year he does have a little bit of fun and quite a few laughs. The movie leaves out extremely important things that need to be in it and I'm not sure how the sixth one is going to work at all. Hermione Granger, Ron Weasly and Draco Malfoy's parts were all pretty much non-existent. I'm almost sure that Fred and George have more lines than Ron and Hermione. Luna Lovegood is really the only thing that seems to come directly from the book, without much change. The actress, Evanna Lynch did a fantastic job and her voice has just the right amount of the "dreaminess" that the books describe it has. Not only that but the character herself is portrayed well and you feel quite a bit of sympathy for her. What I suggest you do is read the books then rent the movie if you're bored and find all the things they changed, left out or added to the movie.

The relocation to New York was a huge mistake suggesting the screenplay failed to realise the importance of the railway to the character in Paula Hawkins's book, a quintessentially British railway winding through residential areas on raised embankments and overlooking houses, and stopping a red signals, habitually. The film also failed to reduce Rachel to the real levels of the dangerously flawed alcoholic seemingly unwilling to demonstrate the real hazards those levels present. Overall, if you have not read the book, I would guess the film picks up, well after half way, for a reasonable finale given all other circumstances but it simply doesn't do the book any justice at any level. The acting was pretty good from the main female cast but I felt the male participants didn't resemble the characters in the book at all.A very lightweight film in so many ways which is a great shame because the book is a wonderful read. I did like the music, however.Five out of ten because the film deserves to be on mainstream mediocre circuits right now.

When I heard about this movie, I did not get many details, I've just heard that it was really wonderful, a true masterpiece. And then I thought the movie was some kind of a biography or a beautiful heartwarming story ... after seeing it I can say that is a little bit of everything.In the movie we have the story of Amélie (Audrey Tautou). Since she was a kid, she always liked to help people around her, making them happy. Not doing great things or giving money, but with little things. For example: She helps her father, making him believe that his garden gnome is on a trip around the world; it helps a lonely neighbor just by visiting it; it helps a stranger returning something from your childhood that she found in her house; and so on. On the way, she falls in love with Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz), who spends his time collecting photos of automatic photo booths in railway station. Then she begins to try helping him, but ends up helping herself.The story is not only sweet and charming, has some very funny moments, and all of these elements help make the beautiful journey of Amélie, which almost acts as a biography. And by the way, the dream of Amélie is to be remembered for many years through their deeds, and her inspiration is Lady Di. In this world of Paris, Amélie is almost perfect inhabitant. She has one of the faces seem to smile all the time. Managing to convey happiness not only for his achievements, but also by her dear eyes.The film looks colorful and bright almost constantly. Even the sad parts of the life of Amélie, her youth, for example, seem almost strangely happy. Jean-Pierre Jeunet (director-writer) can do this in a wonderful way. Leaving us stuck to the life of Amélie, with a sweet and fantastic performance of Audrey Tautou."Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain" is one of the most wonderful movies ever made, with a character, story, direction and writing just fantastic, leaving the film totally unforgettable.

Though from Tony Scott ("Beverly Hills Cop II" and "Days of Thunder"), "True Romance" reeks of writer Quentin Tarantino. More glitzy and highly charged than most of Tarantino's work, it is still peopled with characters typical of his films - lowlifes and strange gangsters - and is full of clever, sharp and insightfully humorous dialogue.Perhaps the romantic element is misplaced, and the Elvis factor may not be entirely effective, but certainly each encounter the Morley's have with their pursuers, and that the pursuers have with others, is enjoyable and action packed, even occasionally gruesome.Had he directed, Quentin would probably have turned this into a real philosophical trip, ala "Pulp Fiction", yet director Tony Scott has gone all out for the shoot 'em up style, delivering romping entertainment while neglecting the deeper probings of Q.T.'s script. This is not to say that Mr. Scott has let us down, but if you don't like full on, in your face action flicks, you'd better forget about this one.All the cast, quite an ensemble, have a great time, especially the walk-ons. Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken are most enjoyable. Leads Christian Slater and the sexy Patricia Arquette hold up very well. Brad Pitt, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Penn, Saul Rubinek and Val Kilmer also drop in on proceedings.Hans Zimmer's music works reasonably well, cinematography is exciting and gunplay action sequences are nerve racking. Editing keeps things well paced. Never a dull moment.Friday, February 23, 1996 - Astor TheatreTony Scott's boisterous, high energy action flick, which is peopled with characters and dialogue typical of Quentin Tarantino (the writer), is highly recommended to those who enjoy their movies loud, fast and with loads of gunplay.While Scott keeps the action coming thick and fast, Tarantino maintains a steady supply of lowlifes to keep us equally entertained. Leads Slater and Arquette do fine, but it is the support cast that grab our attention. Gary Oldman is totally absorbed in his character as always, playing a white pimp whose psychosis has him convinced he's anything but white. Just as entertaining are Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, and the scene played between them is a particular highlight. Joining the fun also are Brad Pitt, Val Kilmer, Chris Penn, Saul Rubinek and Samuel L. Jackson.Colourfully funny and always pacey, "True Romance" is a great one off adventure (at the movies especially) that features a handy score from Hans Zimmer.Sunday, April 20, 1997 - Video

Another Emperor's New Clothes film - it may have been a huge hit in America, where abortion is still a major moral and political issue, but very few people in Europe, even in the most conservative Catholic countries raise a huge stink about it any more.More importantly as a film, I can honestly believe that the book was better, as the film comes out as an overlong, hollow exercise based on the most slender of plots. Tiresome from start to finish.

I saw A.I. Artificial Intelligence about a week ago and I thought it was one of the most intelligent films I have ever seen. There was no cliched dialogue or weak characters, just all the elements of a great movie. Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law portrayed their characters splendidly and the special effects were amazing. Though I must say the John Williams' score was a little weak compared to the other films he has done. All and all, it was a fantastic film and hope to see it again.

I must say I was impressed. With 13 Oscar nominations you are sure to put your hopes too high! But not this time. It is funny, romantic and tragic all at the same time. Like Shakespeare always is. The acting is great. Joseph Fiennes is great as the man himself. Also the Oscar nominees are good: Gwyneth Paltrow is playing her best part so far. She might deserve the Oscar. Judi Dench is fantastic as the Queen. And Geoffrey Rush is very funny. But everyone else are also playing great. There are a lot of funny things to notice. It is funny to see Judi Dench playing Queen Elizabeth, when she have just played Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown", (Where she also was nominated for an Oscar.) It is funny to hear Geoffrey Rush use the phrase "It's a mystery" again. Last time it earned him an Oscar as David Helfgott in "Shine". And it is funny that Joseph Fiennes' last part was as Queen Elizabeth's lover in "Elizabeth" (Where Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) is nominated for an Oscar for her performance. It seem like Finnes is bringing out the best in actresses.) In my opinion the only competitors for Oscar for best film are "Life is Beautiful" and then of course this one. So now all we can do is wait until Sunday for the results.

Terry Gilliam's "nightmare vision" is pretty nightmarish, in a funny Terry Gilliamish way. There's something humorous and mischievously entertaining about "Twelve Monkeys" that keeps it from taking itself too seriously and falling prey to pretention, but then it comes back at you just as intense and creepy as a movie can get. It keeps itself fresh and fluid, with a healthy dose of quirk to it. But I don't think it knows it's an apocalyptic vision.The film is about James Cole, played by Bruce Willis, a man from the future who goes back in time to stop the disaster that sent him underground from ever happening. But that's the simple way of describing it. The story is in a constant fight as to where to go with the plot, with probably a dozen sub-ideas that could turn into something. It's twisted and elaborate and almost impossible to explain to someone without them saying "what?", but like "Memento" or "The Matrix", when you watch it, it makes sense. But these plot developements are delicious fodder and keep it moving, allowing characters like Brad Pitt's pitch perfect sort-of-insane "Jeffrey Bowen" to take a bow (deserved that Oscar nod, BTW). The film's eccentricity takes hold of it. From the cinematography, to the accordian theme that playfully plays throughout the film, to the excessive production design that you know was made that way just because they felt like it (though it does help make the film what it is). And more often than not, the miserable conditions of Mr. Willis or whoever else may be feeling miserable at the time come across the screen in an almost tangible way.But behind the running cinematic joke, and the dark atmosphere of the film, it drives itself home where it must, and Bruce Willis, surprisingly, performs in what is probably one of his best roles. There's a frusterating and pitiful scene when he is desperately trying to make psychiatrists in 1990 accept the fact that he's from the future. They don't buy it, and he realizes that on top of his original task, he now has to find some tedious way to make these people believe him. Teamed with the talented Madeleine Stowe, the duo help create a touching relationship that grounds the film, as it turns out, on a deep personal level.The film doesn't necessarily scare you into thinking all this would happen in real life, we've heard it too much before, and I don't think that was the goal of the movie. But by the end of the film you've been given a healthy sense of dread for the poor characters in the film. How often does that happen? Though when they play the Louis Armstrong classic "Wonderful World" during the credits, it stamps and seals the irony of it all, and does exactly what Mr. Armstrong probably didn't intend the song to do in the first place.

"The Shawshank Redemption" is a movie about time, patience and loyalty -- not sexy qualities, perhaps, but they grow on you during the subterranean progress of this story, which is about how two men serving life sentences in prison become friends and find a way to fight off despair.The story is narrated by "Red" Redding (Morgan Freeman), who has been inside the walls of Shawshank Prison for a very long time and is its leading entrepreneur. He can get you whatever you need: cigarettes, candy, even a little rock pick like an amateur geologist might use. One day he and his fellow inmates watch the latest bus load of prisoners unload, and they make bets on who will cry during their first night in prison, and who will not. Red bets on a tall, lanky guy named Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who looks like a babe in the woods.But Andy does not cry, and Red loses the cigarettes he wagered. Andy turns out to be a surprise to everyone in Shawshank, because within him is such a powerful reservoir of determination and strength that nothing seems to break him. Andy was a banker on the outside, and he's in for murder. He's apparently innocent, and there are all sorts of details involving his case, but after a while they take on a kind of unreality; all that counts inside prison is its own society -- who is strong, who is not -- and the measured passage of time.Red is also a lifer. From time to time, measuring the decades, he goes up in front of the parole board, and they measure the length of his term (20 years, 30 years) and ask him if he thinks he has been rehabilitated. Oh, most surely, yes, he replies; but the fire goes out of his assurances as the years march past, and there is the sense that he has been institutionalized -- that, like another old lifer who kills himself after being paroled, he can no longer really envision life on the outside.Red's narration of the story allows him to speak for all of the prisoners, who sense a fortitude and integrity in Andy that survives the years. Andy will not kiss butt. He will not back down. But he is not violent, just formidably sure of himself. For the warden (Bob Gunton), he is both a challenge and a resource; Andy knows all about bookkeeping and tax preparation, and before long he's been moved out of his prison job in the library and assigned to the warden's office, where he sits behind an adding machine and keeps tabs on the warden's ill-gotten gains. His fame spreads, and eventually he's doing the taxes and pension plans for most of the officials of the local prison system.There are key moments in the film, as when Andy uses his clout to get some cold beers for his friends who are working on a roofing job. Or when he befriends the old prison librarian (James Whitmore). Or when he oversteps his boundaries and is thrown into solitary confinement. What quietly amazes everyone in the prison -- and us, too -- is the way he accepts the good and the bad as all part of some larger pattern than only he can fully see.The partnership between the characters played by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman is crucial to the way the story unfolds. This is not a "prison drama" in any conventional sense of the word. It is not about violence, riots or melodrama. The word "redemption" is in the title for a reason. The movie is based on a story, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, by Stephen King, which is quite unlike most of King's work. The horror here is not of the supernatural kind, but of the sort that flows from the realization than 10, 20, 30 years of a man's life have unreeled in the same unchanging daily prison routine.The director, Frank Darabont, paints the prison in drab grays and shadows, so that when key events do occur, they seem to have a life of their own.Andy, as played by Robbins, keeps his thoughts to himself. Red, as Freeman plays him, is therefore a crucial element in the story: His close observation of this man, down through the years, provides the way we monitor changes and track the measure of his influence on those around him. And all the time there is something else happening, hidden and secret, which is revealed only at the end."The Shawshank Redemption" is not a depressing story, although I may have made it sound that way. There is a lot of life and humor in it, and warmth in the friendship that builds up between Andy and Red. There is even excitement and suspense, although not when we expect it. But mostly the film is an allegory about holding onto a sense of personal worth, despite everything. If the film is perhaps a little slow in its middle passages, maybe that is part of the idea, too, to give us a sense of the leaden passage of time, before the glory of the final redemption.

How do the wizards at Pixar do it? How can they?That's the only thing I could think about when I watched "Monsters, Inc." yesterday. And realized that, no, nothing I had seen there existed. It's a lot easier when watching traditional animation not to get too immersed in the scenes; after all, you are always aware "this is not here". But CGI is making tremendous advances every day.Furthermore, it's not only the realistic animation what impresses the most. It's the heart and soul Pixar embed in each and every of its films. Witness "Shreck", a very good film on its own right, for example. It was a major hit when it was running on theaters, yet it's seldom talked about nowadays. Now, think "Toy Story 2" or "Toy Story". Both were movie milestones, and definitely are destined to be classics in a couple of years (dare I say both are "instant classics"?). The secret, or reason, is in the powerful dose of humanity Pixar gives each and every one of their creations. They all have so many human traits it's very hard not to end up liking (loving?) them as if they were real. In a sense they are, being perfectly well rounded characters in perfectly recognizable situations. The fears and hopes of human beings are indelibly etched in every character (fear of death, fear of loneliness, fear of failure, etc.), which makes them even dearer to our hearts.From the animated short that's shown at the beginning of the movie (the "Birds" featurette, a very similar concept to the "Carnival of the Animals" section of Fantasia 2000... very funny) to story development, "Monsters, Inc." works like a charm all the way, all the time. Steve Buscemi, John Goodman and Billy Crystal are always having a ball, with a tremendous sense of chemistry between them. Couple that with the prettiest, best CGI character I've ever seen (Boo), and you have a group of superb people playing their parts perfectly well, in a story that is funny, very sweet, and that will leave you filled with love and laughter. Still... I think this movie comes *this* close to being another Toy Story 2. It's not that it is a bad movie; it's just that TS2 is a landmark; not only the best CGI movie ever, but one of the best movies ever made, period. TS2 most enduring quality is that, to a certain degree, it can soften the most hardened soul with its sweet, beautiful message, while "Monsters" is a bit less complex in its underlying theme. The fact that it managed to retain so much humanity throughout it, though, is a testament that the wizards at Pixar still have that magic touch that eludes so many famous "live actors".I want more.

SERIOUSLY! Why the F does Tony Scott shoot most of his movies (like this one) in that flashy, choppy, nauseating style! It's not a good style in the least. When will directors realize that just cuz people want their movies to be original, and creative, and artistic, it doesn't mean the friggin style of the camera, and way it's shot has to be like that! Like Cloverfield. It's a good movie, that I can't even watch! Cuz it seriously gives me motion sickness. No audience member is going "Wow, look how this movie flashes and flies all over the place and makes u sick. Awesome.". People want their movies shot normally!!!!! It's so dam distracting trying to watch a movie like this. But ohhh, we get it Tony, ur an artist. You've got style. No, u just make ur potentially good movies suck by the way you shoot them. That's all.

The idea is definitely good; in fact, that's what made me buy the DVD cheap at a sale. Psycho killer makes people play a 'game' with their lives. If they succeed---often at great pain, loss of blood, the occasional limb, or the killing of someone else---they will be set free again, and appreciate life more. If they fail, well... Let's just say they didn't appreciate life enough, then.I'm not going to tell the story, hundreds of others already did so. I'm going to focus on what I felt as I was watching the movie. And that was basically nothing. It begins give minutes into the movie, when the doctor-character stresses in a totally unconvincing way that they have to cooperate to make it out alive. There isn't a single shred of mortal fear, of failure to reason properly, of distrust, or of whatever which makes humans human. *That* is the real scare you should get from such movies: to witness what happens when layers of sanity are silently but remorselessly stripped away. Instead, there's just grime, blood, sweat and dirty toilets. You know that the two main characters cannot kill each other because they are too far away from each other, and the only option they have to *make* the kill is by cutting off their own feet. Which is about the last thing they want to do---you really have to be desperate.So what is the last straw? Not being able to answer a phone after you hear a lot of shots fired, and fear for the life of your wife and child whom you did not really show any affection for throughout the movie, I kid you not. I am sure that this is some ultimate joke aimed at people who are addicted to that wireless leash: they'd rather cut their own foot off in order to answer it then to let it ring and let voice mail handle it. The scenes portraying this ultimate breakdown are pathetic and totally unconvincing, simply because you---as a viewer---already know what happens, so you cannot sympathise with the victim.The other 99% of the movie is just as bad. Flashbacks aplenty, sometimes even a flashback within a flashback, but this plot device doesn't really fit into this movie. They are just there to paint a picture of Jigsaw, but it doesn't really provide any clues as to solve the puzzle. Or rather, you learn that there is no other way to solve the puzzle save through what Jigsaw planned. In a really tense movie, the good guy manages to beat the bad guy by outsmarting him at his own game. A snowball has a better chance in hell of not melting than that happening in Saw.I only give this movie a 4 because the only time I sat up straight and could appreciate the entire affair was the last one, one-and-a-half minute before the end. Then a totally unexpected alternate plot line develops you did not see coming, and it shows the only good idea the writer/director/producer had. I turned off the TV shaking my head and wondering why they didn't make the entire movie like that.The psycho was such a nice idea to begin with. And it is really such a shame that it was ruined so expertly.

I scored Godzilla 10 out of 10 and let me tell you, why:First, this is a monsterfilm and what I want from a monsterfilm is a monster and maybe some stupid humans it squeezes. And we've got it.Second, this is a spectacular film and what I want from a spectacular film is a bunch of monumental scenes made with the latest technics (CGI here), which stick me to the seat. And Godzilla's got lots of them.I don't know, why do people watch a movie, if they don't like its style in advance and write later stupid reviews comparing the film to completely different ones or expecting things, which are absolutely not the part of that type of movie (like here criticizing the actors).So if you like spectacular monsterfilms, Godzilla is your film! And you'll get the actual level of CGI animation in '98.

5th Element is one of my favorite movies. The costumes were great, as are the sets, it's funny when it needs to be, the action was fun, and all the models playing bit parts is quite amusing. How many other movies have an opera performance? Aside from snooty movies about operas. And Milla, *sigh* Milla is always a pleasure to watch. i've watched it at least 6 times and will prolly watch it once a year until i die.

Depending on how you view the subject matter and films based on comic books, this is either a movie you will love or hate. I've seen it twice already so you know where I stand. I thought the special effects were well done and the dialog to be above par for this type of movie (comic book). As for the acting, there are some very good performances which have been mentioned in other comments. However, regarding Keanu Reeves, I think that there must be some sort of hate club out there that has no other goal in mind other than to denigrate his acting. Granted he is not of the Robert DeNiro school of acting. Keanu is Keanu much the same as John Wayne was always John Wayne, Eastwood is always Eastwood, etc etc. And that is fine if you like his screen persona. I do, and I think he plays the title role with the right amount of sarcasm, fatigue, and a world weariness that comes across just fine. For those who continue to hammer on his performances, well everyone to his or her own opinion. He is of the stoic acting school and that is just as legitimate as the over-the-top-emoting school that you see from most actors nowadays. As I said in the beginning, if you like the subject matter (hell, damnation, demons, angels, etc) and like movies that are based on comic books (impossible yet engaging) and aren't a Keanu hater, then you will probably enjoy this film. PS there is also some very good chemistry between Keanu and Rachel Weisz.

As others have mentioned, I was surprised to find out this was a musical. I got pulled into seeing this by my wife but had an open mind...particularly after seeing Maleficent.I have to say, it is horrible, boring and you will be begging for it to end. It is very disjointed with tragedies to characters whom you do not care about. Why do you not care about them you ask? Because they are flipped and tossed around in a script that provides very little development...not to mention, no one else in the movie cares about them either (except in one instance).The stories that are intertwined are done so in a very lazy way. It is difficult to keep up and you will likely find yourself trying to figure out one story just to make sense of the next. In short, it is jumbled together poorly.In closing, you really never find out what is going on until the end but by that time you have been waiting for the movie to end, it is too late to care. Very bad after the recent outstanding Disney movies that have come out recently.

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. The subtle details of this move amaze me every time I watch it. My only problem is getting friends to watch the movie that haven't seen it. During the whole movie I sit there, "watch this part!" as they are talking amongst themselves. Then at the end of the movie it doesn't make sense to them.This is a great movie and I thank Quentin Tarantino for making it the way he did. There is nothing about this movie that I would change.I just wish I could make everyone sit down and pay close attention so they also could appreciate this movie the way I and all the other voters do. Thanks.

I have never seen the Broadway musical, but the movie was outstanding. It made me cry, it made me laugh, it made me happy and it made me sad. All in all it was amazing, and it makes me want to take a trip to NY and see it on Broadway. Everyone did an amazing job filling their character's shoes, and the choreography and songs were phenomenal. It was fantastic, and I recommend it highly! The songs have so much meaning, and the story in itself holds so much meaning to how everyone should live. "Measure your life in love" as they say, love truly does make the world go 'round. I really hope anyone who see's this has the same feelings as I do, because it is truly wonderful. Everyone will enjoy it, young and old..go see it!!!

When Ben Affleck came up with the idea to direct this movie he thought this way: "OK, I'll never gonna get my Oscar for best actor but if I direct movie that rises patriotism it's gonna happen for sure. American movie academy likes that. Remember Kathryn Bigelow and "The Hurt Locker". It doesn't really matter anything else." And it is what is going to be. This movie has so many flaws that makes me think where to start. The storyline is one-sided. One side is a good one and wants to save fugitives from certain death and second side is a bad one and wants to kill them as being spies. Totally cliché. The plot is shallow, barren, predictable and after while becomes boring. I don't think that the events described in the movie really happened this way and are authentic. Many countries protested about it (Iran, Great Britain, New Zeland and even Canada) so the storyline is very disputable. Acting was in the background cause the purpose of the movie was patriotic. Ben Affleck acting skills are weak as always. Alan Arkin and John Goodman are great actors as always but hadn't chance to show more themselves cause the script is barren. Directing is disputable and you may not like it. If you expected to see a good and realistic political drama watch "Syriana". This movie is not what you were expected to be. I never liked one-sided stories.

Basically this is a semi-generic action movie. You're not going to remember it 2 years from now. Not something you want to waste your money on watching in theaters. I know I'm coming off as mean but I'm just being honest. There are far too many better action movies out right now. Anyway, the plot of this film is your basic throwaway plot. The special effects are a mixed bag. The creatures look good during night scenes but look campy during the day scenes. So yeah, the first battle is pretty good but then the action in the film goes downhill. Not because of some mistake by the director or anything like that but because you can only watch so much CGI fighting on a screen before it all starts looking the same and you start getting bored. In summary; this would make a decent watch when it comes on TNT or USA in two years from now however this isn't a film you must watch right this second because it is awesome or whatever. You get my point. I am officially ranking the film a 6.5 out of 10 but giving 2 out of 10 just to lower the overall ranking.

This is a pretty well told story and since it disses the current buffoons running the govt., it got my approval. The storyline made sense most of the time even if I always find tedious these movies in which a mere human seems to be a superman... bullets fly all around Wahlberg but never hit him, except for the dufus cop at the first of the movie... and of course he actually missed because he was supposed to kill him. But, if you can forget all that and treat him like a Jason Bourne, the movie works and Wahlberg is almost as talented as Damon in the "faster than a speeding bullet" arena. Just the right amount of evil coming from the FBI and the crooked Senator... not so much as to make them laughable and enough to make them a serious threat. If the movie has a fault it is that once again we see the system failing. We know who the crooks are, since we movie goers are omniscient, but no one is in real life... so the blow out at the Bozeman ranch (Bozeman never looked so good!) is excessive... but we accept it because we KNOW he's killing evil doers. Unfortunately, life is far more complex.

Easily one of the best films of the year and, I would suppose, a lock for a number of award nominations. An excellent script, delivered on by a cast a marvelous actors. From the leads to the unspeaking parts of a myriad of onlookers - all were excellent.Colin Firth does a wonderful job as the Duke of York who ascends to the throne as George VI; yet, his performance, while outstanding, is surpassed a bit (in my mind) by that of Geoffrey Rush as the Duke's/King's speech therapist.Helena Bonham Carter has a major supporting role as The Duke's/King's wife, Elizabeth (known to us in later years as the Queen Mother). Carter handles this role with absolute perfection. Elegant, caring, protective; yet, at all times royal. Marvelous understatement in her performance.Even the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret and played nicely by two young actresses who are capable of using their eyes to carry a scene, not just the script. Their parts are small, but very important in setting the scene and drawing parallels between the Duke's/King's childhood and their own.Additionally, the director showed wonderfully the period between the wars.An excellent film that could be enjoyed by all as was evidenced by the response of the patrons at a very crowded theater at 10:15 AM on a Sunday morning. The film's hype brought them; but it will be the word of mouth that really will sell this film.

They say you're supposed to review in a magical vacuum, but that's impossible. The way I feel about things are influenced by all the other things I've experienced in my life, and I can't ride into a land of objectivity and no context, nor would I particularly want to. With that said, the fact that I've seen most of the Marvel movies already, as well as some of the DC ones and numbers untold of other generic Hollywood action films, makes it really difficult for me to find anything new or interesting with Doctor Strange. It's true that Cumberbatch does more with this role than anyone could have reasonably expected him to. It's actually a terribly-written character, yet he manages to inject likability into an utterly unlikable person who, played by anyone else, would have been completely insufferable. This is because he's an excellent actor, far too cool and interesting for a movie like this, which is neither of those things. Swinton also is far too cool and interesting for this movie. Her performance was in my opinion the best aspect of the film; she too managed to take an inherently uninteresting, uninspired character and make it somehow riveting. At least until they killed her.I'm just tired of giving Marvel movies a pass when they're so formulaic, generically-written, and genuinely uninspired. The 6 I gave this is entirely because Cumberbatch and Swinton are so blisteringly excellent. Otherwise, Doctor Strange is more of the same.

The plot of Kane was evident, but it was slightly monotonous (in my opinion). The prospect of a reporter attempting to find the origins of a mysterious name sounds dull, and seemed to play even duller on the screen. This is one of the movies that can be watched only with a sharp mind -- anything lesser and boredom, then sleep, seems to set in.

OK, so this is my first film review/comment so I don't have much experience in the reviewing department, however I do have experience in watching films! (Doesn't everybody? haha) To be honest, when I first heard of this movie my expectations weren't that high. I simply thought 'Oh, another independent film. Probably low budget, meaning a lame script, screen play and surely the selection of cast can't be that fantastic', however when I sat down to watch this movie, I was pleasantly surprised.Not only did it really get me thinking about life and what it means, but in a way it gave me a different perspective on history, and what people 'could have' been like in that time (I know this film is not a history text book, but as a visual person it gave me an insight into the possibility of what life was like back then).This movie practically had me sitting at the edge of my seat, just waiting for the next line of dialogue that would meet my ears. To me, it almost felt like I was sitting there on the chair with that group, becoming transfixed with John Oldman's story.I rate this movie a 10 out of 10, simply because not many movies get me thinking like this one did - And it also has a level of educational value in there that I found rather interesting (being a history student and all). To anyone that finds Earth's history curious, intriguing and interesting, I recommend this movie to you.Sci-Fi fans will love this! As did I! And Dear Director, thankyou for making this movie. You have made me a very happy person.

Twisted is all I can say without giving anything away, great movie one of my favourites of 2014 ,Big fan of Ben Affleck (Good Will Hunting,The Town and Boiler Room)Rosamund Pike only seen her in (Jack Reacher.)And is crazy in this one.One to watch twice for sure , OK so the ending might make you mad, but the movie will throw you curve ball after curve ball till you get tired of presuming who it may be. This film is full of thrills chills and suspense, which you wont forget after its of over, it will make your heart beat , it made my wife's for sure lol,its not what your think, so get ready for a roller-coaster of a movie you will like this one.