Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

Normally, sequels make the franchise better, but unfortunately, this is not the case for the Robocop series. In 1987, a movie Robocop was created, which was directed by Paul Verhoven and the writers were Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner. What made Robocop stand out was that it was one of the best sci-fi movies of its time. The story was down-to-earth, and the principal cast was likable.Now, enter Robocop 2, which gave a number of mixed reviews and both sides had their valid points.Story: 5/10 (due to the cut material set by Kirshner). This movie chronologically takes place a year after Robocop was placed on active duty. Robocop and Lewis(Peter Weller and Nancy Allen reprising their roles) fight a drug lord (played by Tom Noonan.) who designed the drug "Nuke." The story on-screen felt like there was barely any material the director could come up with. Truth is, Frank Miller had more story material written on paper, but unfortunately, Irvin Kershner made the god-forsaken mistake to cut out bits and pieces of Frank's vision. The only thing left is the over-the-top violence, and "Robocop 2" which is the sad truth.Both interviews with Peter Weller and Nancy Allen had one thing in common. There were things missing what made the first movie good, such as moments of crucial character development. I was surprised that Weller didn't want to do Robocop 3, and he made a good decision. The sasd fact is that out of the cut material given, they involved Robocop's humanity.The only way to access those cut material is either a Director's Cut DVD or checking out the comic books. Just watching the movie by itself is reduced to a clichéd "Let's kick ass" movie. Entertaining, yes, but it just suffered a lot. The subplots making Robocop a complete hippy pacifist, and the Murphy family were badly depicted in the movie. Robocop's pacifist demeanor was laughably bad during both scenes involving children. I don't know how Peter Weller felt when doing that scene, but I felt sorry for the guy agreeing to a scene like this. The Murphy family subplot was resolved *VERY* badly. I felt like throwing up when Robocop was forced to not be himself in front of his wife, and he just stood there like an idiot while watching his wife talk with an OCP-hired lawyer.Sound: 8/10 The guns sounded like they are supposed to. The music however was a bit too up-beat for some tastes. Robocop was depicted to be a hero who struggles with the way he is in the first movie, but Robocop 2's soundtrack made him look like a freaking action hero from the 1960s version of comic-book-based movies.Acting and character development: 6/10 (blamed on the cut material again): Weller did a good job with what he did for the movie, but what made him memorable just wasn't there during the sequel. The same thing went for Allen's portrayal of Lewis. The actors weren't to blame for this, but the direction Kirshner wanted for the movie.Overall: The movie is just average to mediocre. It's a big insult to Robocop fans including myself. I agree with the other reviewers to the fact that it was a rush job, that's all the movie was just so they could get fast cash despite the amount of effort given into the special effects for the battle between both Robocops.

If Satan really did look like Elizabeth Hurley, I would probably sell my soul too. I enjoyed this comedy the first time I watched it, and I revisited it because I knew it was worth another viewing.Now, I am not a big Brendan Fraser fan, but he was perfectly cast for this role. He was the perfect dupe for the slick Hurley, who always looked absolutely fantastic in every appearance.The make-up and costuming were marvelous, and the movie was truly funny throughout. Wow! A comedy that is continuously funny. How rare.Although his part was small, I really enjoyed Gabriel Casseus in the cellmate/angel role.

Imagine what it was like before the solar system existed. Now, imagine what it was like before the universe existed. Before the universe, what was there? According to Norse mythology, before the universe, there was darkness. In Thor: The Dark World, directed by Alan Taylor, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is forced to fight the darkness that once consumed everything.Two years after Thor's first visit to Earth, and just over a year after The Battle of New York, scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) dreams that one day Thor will fulfill his promise to her and come back. While on a date, Jane's assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings) pulls her away from her date and to a deserted building which housed some sort of portal. After being sucked in by a portal, Jane stumbles upon the aether, a powerful, other worldly element desired by leader of the dark elves, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), to bring the darkness back to the universe forever. The aether, with a mind of it's own (in a way), attached itself to Jane, now living inside her. When Jane surfaces back in London, she is greeted by Thor, who takes her back to Asgard after realizing something is terribly wrong.Once the aether is awakened, Malekith is also. He learns that the aether is on Asgard, so he strikes. After a bloody battle, Thor is forced to go to the one man in all the nine realms who he trusts the least, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). With Loki free for now, he, Thor, and Jane set out to destroy Malekith and save the nine realms from eternal darkness.Being the second installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Two, Thor: The Dark World does a nice job of getting the story across. The Dark World was miles better than Thor back in 2011, and while it certainly is not the best movie of Phase Two, and only tops a couple movies in Phase One, TDW holds it's ground. Much of the movie was CGI effects, which were spectacular. Also, TDW seemed to go along with the overall plan of Phase Two to go darker, which TDW did both literally and story wise. While some may say that Malekith is a perfectly suitable villain, an argument can be made that he was subpar, and could have been made much more evil. Sprinkled throughout the movie were scenes that could have, and probably should have, been removed. Also, some plot point may be confusing, so be sure to pay close attention.All in all, Thor: The Dark World is a solid movie. Chris Hemsworth gives the best performance he has given as the character. Tom Hiddleston once again shines as Loki, and Natalie Portman does a solid job as Jane Foster. Unfortunately, Stellan Skarsgård's Dr. Erik Selvig is ridiculously underused and treated as a joke, which is a shame especially considering the roles he play in Thor and The Avengers. With all this being said, Thor: The Dark World is still a definite must see.Rating: 7 of 10BrickMovieReviews.wordpress.com @BrickFilmReview

after seeing the hype i've decided to watch this movie in 2014.....and i found it very very boring ,from the start ...i recommend this movie to test someone's patience....and this is extremely helpful for people suffering from sleeplessness...may thats the reason many people like it2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. it is indeed ahead of its time ...but for us ,now ..its not so great .....get bore to hellpeople say its realistic ...yes its true ,but a movie should be interesting not to drag ....it should be removed from top list...

A measure of how bad "Demolition Man" is lies in the fact the IMDb's trivia pages inform me that both Steven Seagal AND Jean-Claude Van Damme turned the film down. The reason? We may never know, but Marco Brambilla's film certainly has that 'numbing' quality and sense of overuse of action which would not have been out of place in a feature starring the aforementioned stars. I think it would be wrong to say that there lies not an interesting idea at the epicentre of "Demolition Man", but anyone would be damned if they admit to what the final product resembles is the best way to go about executing it.Sylvester Stallone plays John Spartan, an all-action police officer in the LAPD occupying a dystopian then-future set in accordance to the film's 1993 release. Crime, despite the law now essentially coming to resemble what some armies around the world might look like, is overrunning the city to the extent that the "Hollywood" sign is permanently alight. Perhaps there is a hidden subtext to this dramatic opening vista. Perhaps not. Filmed in the aftermath of the riots which were induced post-Rodney King fiasco, buildings are ruined; gunfire sprays up from the ground at patrol choppers and rubble often dominates the ground.For reasons unexplained, Spartan is hunting a stock psychopath in the form of Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes), who this time has overrun a building with a gang of thugs and is holding some hostages he intends on killing. We sense the two share a backstory, in the mould of Batman and The Joker, but it is never clear. Phoenix is not an especially interesting villain – his reasoning for what he does seems to be to merely invoke chaos at a time when all law and civility has broken down. Spartan eventually apprehends his man, but the police force denigrates him for his blasé approach which leads to the building blowing up and the hostages dying.Consequently, Spartan is frozen in ice, without being killed, so that he may be thawed and possibly paroled at a future date. This should strike us as strange for the fact much of what lies behind a prisoner being granted parole in the first place is good prison behaviour. Frozen in a block of ice, of course, negates this. However, he is thawed prematurely in 2032 when Phoenix escapes the very same prison (why Snipes' character was not given the death penalty, we do not know) and goes on a rampage for reasons which later become clearer. Spartan is charged with initially trying to put a stop to the violence and terror Phoenix is now unleashing.The entire premise is mostly an excuse to have Snipes and Stallone duke it out in a variety of locations using their fists and an array of exotic weaponry not limited to: Kalashnikov rifles; sawn off shotguns; futuristic laser-blaster guns and, on one especially silly occasion, a Napoleonic era canon. But in a post-"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" era, the hand to hand combat is not up to standard while the action sequences themselves are rapid and unmoving.More interesting is the world into which they are thawed, namely a future very much removed from the era they came from: a dreamy, gooey, wide-eyed Utopia stuck in a strange place on the political spectrum between liberalism and conservatism, and one which is now free of violence and anything which was once considered harmful to society – things not limited to: spicy food; sugar; cigarettes; sex and kissing. The pioneer of this world is Raymond Cocteau (Nigel Hawthorne), who despite being a political visionary, is not adept enough to guard his own well-being following the bringing of other pre-frozen criminals into the new future.Also in the future is Sandra Bullock's existing police officer Lenina Huxley, whose character arc blunders onto the screen when she whines about the lack of crime in the city: "I want some action!" she moans. She'll get it eventually, although is curiously absent during the film's climax when her catharsis of really learning about violence should have happened.The film is a mostly weak exercise. Very little is made of the fact Spartan lost his wife in the interim of being frozen and then thawed and it is not satisfyingly tied in with his newfound fondness for Bullock. Can we remember, by the end, that he was even married? Similarly, the roots of Stallone's character are flaccid – he is seemingly responsible for the deaths of dozens of hostages in the beginning, but maintains this gung-ho approach again in the future when granted the opportunity to go after Phoenix again. Despite craving violence early on, and having experienced what she experiences, what does Bullock's character learn about anything? By the end, when certain twists and turns have played out, we think we've seen something more interesting than we actually have, while the film's heavy reliance on elements from works such as Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" has the film feel loftier than it actually is. The film's insistence on bombarding us with product placement in-between its actions sequences becomes ingratiating, with no fewer than Taco Bell; Armour Hotdogs and Marlboro getting in on the act becomes insulting. Meanwhile, somewhat central to the film is a joke about seashells and going to the bathroom... When all is said and done, "Demolition Man" is a mostly empty, numbing experience.

Patrick Bateman, Remember the name,Christian bale brings out the best of himself and recreates definition of insanity.Bateman,if wanted could have destroyed the whole world but he is a good boy..(sarcasm) the whole movie revolves around the man who had trouble to find his real self.He kills,he slaughters. Patrick Bateman driven by greed and would go far to kill the person who shows him he superiority and would keep them and harness it. Williem Defoe does make him break sweat but.Bateman man cannot be beaten The movie keeps the viewer well and truly involve so much that they would really would not want see the end. The movie does give a strong message to viewers that greed and disgust is just too much to be with it around and with it Christian bale does make his mark as one of the actors of 21st century and one surely not to be messes with.

'THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)Spy flick, directed by Guy Ritchie, and based on the 1964 TV series, of the same name. It stars Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer, as two secret agents, one American and one Russian, assigned to work together; to stop a mad couple from building a nuclear weapon. The film also stars Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Luca Calvani, Jared Harris and Hugh Grant; it was written by Ritchie, Lionel Wigram, Jeff Kleeman and David Campbell Wilson. I found the film to be stylistically awesome, funny and immensely entertaining; despite a weak plot!The film begins in 1963 East Berlin. CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Cavill), has just tracked down a woman, by the name of Gabby Teller (Vikander, of 'EX MACHINA' fame). He's being followed by a KGB agent, named Illya Kuryakin (Hammer), who also wants to apprehend Teller. Gabby's father is a Nazi scientist, who's been aiding the U.S. government, but went missing. It turns out that the scientist's knowledge is being used to create a nuclear weapon; for a rich Italian couple (Debicki and Calvani) in Rome, with former Nazi ties. After Solo and Kuryakin try to kill each other, they're forced to team up, by their employers, and stop the completion of the nuclear device. Teller helps them, on their mission in Rome, as well. Like many previous Guy Ritchie films, I couldn't follow the storyline nearly at all (while I was watching it). Also like previous Guy Ritchie flicks, it didn't matter though. The movie is funny (the jokes almost always work) and the characters are very likable (you actually care what happens to them). I wasn't involved in what was going on with the plot, at all; but I was very involved in what was going on with the characters. Cavill and Hammer are both brilliantly cast, and they have great chemistry together too (the film turns into an awesome buddy flick). Vikander and Debicki are both stunningly beautiful and good in their roles as well; Debicki makes a great femme fatale also. The film is also beautifully stylistic, action-packed and always fascinating to watch; even if you don't always know what's going on. Besides a coherent plot, you can't really ask for a lot more in a film; this is definitely not a movie that demands one though. It's Guy Ritchie at his best!Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/iHtyjLDJ1Ko

Overally, it was not a bad movie. Cinematographically it was a good movie, the camera angles were impressive sometimes. The idea giving references to the movies was creative and significant for the movie's course.However, I think, the story was weak. There were disconnections in the story. The plot does not fulfill the expectations of the audience. Compared to the other movies of Bertolucci, the messages given were hazy and loose. Other than that, I did not like the political messages -which were really given too clearly- of the movie such as the idea that favors individualism over collectivism, or raw anti-violence discourse. In the last scene, the movie establishes a cause and effect relation between the violent behaviors of the protesters and the intervention of the police forces. Therefore, in a way, it justifies the police intervention and damages the political legitimacy of the protesting side.

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) is a tomato fighting bums. Mickey (Burgess Meredith) has even taken his gym locker away. He collects for a loan shark, and is infatuated with mousy Adrian (Talia Shire). When heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) can't find an opponent for a short notice fight for the Bicentennial, he picks the Italian Stallion out of a book. Apollo wanted a white local guy with a cool nickname. It's a chance of a lifetime for Rocky.Stallone wrote this script, and gave possibly his best performance ever. Everybody gave great performances including Burt Young as the memorable Paulie. All the characters have become movie icons. It is a bit too long. The 2 hour running time is extended for the simple storyline. However, the movie never stalls. Sly is absolutely charming, and his lovable Rocky keeps the movie focused on him. The fight action is about 10 minutes at the end. It is exciting, and the final scene is as memorable as it gets.

You might as well watch any other police drama similar in nature to "The Shield" or "Criminal Minds". The writers fall upon Detective James Gordon meeting four of Gotham's future crime bosses in just one episode. In a city of millions, that is like winning the state lottery six times in a row. Let's face it, the early teen years of Bruce Wayne and Gotham City is like watching the early years of Pompeii or a series called "The Building of the Titanic". This is just pointless and you shouldn't be seeing a young Bruce Wayne jumping into action.I understand the focus is on James Gordon as a rookie detective, but again, he is not about to put on a mask and fight crime. It is only made worse when you realize, no matter what peril becomes him, he must always escape danger. That kind of character is dull and lifeless.I know there are fans who will watch and cheer this show just because it is related in name only to the franchise. I ask you, please, take a step outside the box. View the pilot and episode two once more. This time without preconceived characters in any nameless city. Now ask yourself, if this show is any different from the countless other crime dramas offered?

I have read all 5 Harry Potter books that are out at the time and so far, number 3 is my favorite. You can imagine my excitement in wanting to see this movie. The first one was okay and the second one was much better. Learning a new director was behind this one thrilled me even more, thinking 'Excellent, it'll appear new and be the best movie too'. Wrong. Very wrong. *May contain Spoilers after here* Okay, what enraged me the most was the sudden handgrabbing with Hermione and Ron. That was never even thought of in the book because they fought through almost the entire thing! How dare the stupid movie makers/writers even try to give people that haven't read the book that idea! Another quality I disliked was that they rarely showed teachers from previous movies, it showed not one Charms, Transfiguration, or Potions class. Find that alittle odd? You see Professor McGonagal and Dumbledore maybe three times throughout the film. Next, I must be angry with the wardrobers! Why were they in normal clothing almost throughout the entire thing! We even saw before that outside of classes they still had to wear uniforms! Another thing is the explanation of things. The pace of this movie was too fast and they never explained that Moony was Remus Lupin, Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, Padfoot was Sirius Black, and Prongs was James Potter. They also didn't explain how Sirius escaped from Azkaban. Other various things were left out. The ending, which usually has Harry leaving the train was left out completely(I mean, all the books ended that way, the movie should've too). Instead we get a shot of Harry trying out his Firebolt...Overall, this movie was worse than the first two but, thankfully, the idiot director will not be returning for the fourth, they've gotten someone else.There were some good things in the movie but not enough to save it overall. Buckbeak was cute and real looking which gave the film a bonus of noncrappy special effects. The dementors were awesome even though I never pictured them flying but that made it scarier. As usual, the use of magic was good and the acting improved.I give the film a 6 out of 10.

This film reminds me of both Elf and Splash, where the character who has been somewhere for ages discovers the new world of present society. Basically inventor Calvin Webber (Christopher Walken) built a strong bomb shelter under his house, and he and wife Helen Thomas Webber (Carrie's Sissy Spacek) become convinced that a nuclear blast happened, but they can't get out for 35 years, they are currently in the 1960s. When this time has passed their son, Adam (Brendan Fraser) is grown up and goes up to try and fit in to the world of the 1990s. Along the way he meets new friends Eve Rustikoff (Alicia Silverstone) and Troy (A Bug's Life's Dave Foley). It is Adam's naive nature, politeness and lack of all intelligence that not only makes him weird, but wins Eve's heart. Also starring Joey Slotnick as Soda Jerk/ Archbishop Melker. The highlight of the film for me is when Adam dances with two blonde women when looking for a girlfriend or wife, he is really good. Good!

I too caught an advance screening, and honestly, I only went since it was free. The trailer didn't really entice me and I'm not a big fan of Jamie Foxx. Having lowered expectations was probably a good thing in that it was better than I thought, while still not a good film.The most disappointing aspect about it to me is that you could see the good idea in there waiting to get out, but that good idea is muddled by poor writing and direction... while the deaths are staged as thrills or shocks, they are each so heavily foreshadowed or so clichéd that it lacks any genuine excitement. You see everything coming about 5 minutes before the characters themselves do. There are a couple of twists and turns that aren't entirely obvious, but based on the premise, it could have been so much more.

Ridley Scott! Uneblievable. What a disappointment. So much to look forward to, so much to experience. Then, what disaster. Absolutely no sense at all, pointless plot, really poor storytelling, nothing makes sense, scenes without any connection. I am speechless. Good sound editing, good visual effects. Point taken, someone threw money in and said, make it look nice, don't worry about meaning or sense, the 3D-event-and-sensation-generation swallow any nonsense. And so Ridley did. Hard to believe, this was meant to be like that. If anyone has an explanation for this, please come forward, but truly, nothing in this film is coherent or within the story or the setting plausible. Very disappointing.

When I watch a movie, I expect to have my emotions tugged and feel somewhat enlightened from it. This movie left me in awe.The fluid movements one usually doesn't see in anime were incredible. The vibrant spirit of the characters, plot, setting and all else left me wanting to watch it over and over again. A true masterpiece of the entire film industry.

Harrison Ford has become one of my favorite actors, and this is yet another movie where he shines. In this third (and possibly final) installment in the Indiana Jones series, Jones (Ford) has been invited to an associates house to translate an ancient tablet. When he translates it, he finds that it is a key to finding the holy grail; that's when he learns that his father (Sean Connery) has already begun the search. Throughout his quest to find his father, and then the grail, Jones encounters unforgettable villains, evil Nazis, and lovable allies, and when you add in lots of adventure, great dialogue, and the bonding between Indie and his dad, you have one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. I would highly recommend it to anyone who has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, or anyone who loves a great adventure movie with a strong plot, or for anyone who just loves Harrsion Ford.10 out of 10.

'New Year's Eve', despite its mammoth ensemble cast, doesn't quite leave a mark. Its, at best, a fair watch, that has a few interesting moments. 'New Year's Eve' Synopsis: The lives of several couples & singles in New York intertwine over the course of New Year's Eve.Katherine Fugate's Screenplay is ambitious, but not very well-crafted. The vignettes laced in the narrative, range from ordinary to dull. The only vignette that holds appeal is the one called Elevator, which features Ashton Kutcher & Lea Michelle. Garry Marshall's Direction is decent. Cinematography is picture-perfect. Editing lacks sharpness. Art & Costume Design are alright.Performance-Wise: Of the ensemble cast, Its only Ashton Kutcher & Lea Michelle who deliver confident, likable performances. The rest of the cast lend adequate support.On the whole, 'New Year's Eve' is a so-so fare.

I agree with Art with the whole "perfect for ID4 haters" since, let's face it, Independence Day, is extremely over rated, and I agree with Robert, for saying you if you didn't like SCTV, stay away. I loved this movie, it's a great escape from reality, and in a sense, it was supposed to appear to be bad. If you don't know what I mean, go rent This Island Earth, or another junk 50's movie. This is a great movie for fans of MST3K, to play with.

Austin Powers is a funny comedy that is my favourite Mike Myers movie to date. The movie is about Austin Powers who is frozen in the year 1967 and unfrozen in 1997 to save the world from the evil Doctor Evil. The movie is very funny and is the perfect spoof to all action movies(particularly James Bond movies) as it has lots of the aspects that James Bond movies do(for example the cards,babes and all that). I have never met a person who does not like this movie and I have met quite a few people that have seen it. Overall if you have not seen this movie then you must go and see it now as it is funny and just overall awesome. I rate it 86% and look for Will Ferrells character as he is hilarious.

David O. Russell's American Hustle is one of those films that leaves you expecting more. This expectation is severely inflated by the critical acclaim it is receiving. It is one of those movies that leaves you thinking "maybe I just don't get it." American Hustle takes place at the end of the 1970s, and I supposed if you remember that time period fondly you may enjoy American Hustle for the nostalgia aspect. It's a nice vehicle for the A-list cast to do their thing, and if all you want is to see Christian Bale et. al. having a good time, then you'll probably enjoy the movie.American Hustle is not a bad movie. It is technically proficient. It even has a really neat visual effect that takes place at a dry cleaner with the characters framed by spinning laundry. Story-wise however, it is a very standard, by-the-numbers movie.Stop reading here if you don't want SPOILERS Although, there's really nothing to spoil.The rest of the review may be found at Sacramentopress.com

I think a lot of the reviews have some validity, both the good and the bad, but I think most of them are way too critical, and probably too praiseworthy, for that matter.For me, I thought Christian Bale and Jennifer Lawrence were stellar. Carmine, played by Jeremy Renner, was a bit like a doe with his sad blue eyes. The plot was pretty weak, but Russell apparently said he was more interested in capturing character interaction, rather than a strong storyline. I think he fell a bit short in capturing that. I felt as though I wanted to be more involved with Irving's guilt towards Carmine, but Renner's performance was just a bit too weak for that to happen. In fact, all these connections between the actors seemed to fall a bit short in intertwining with each other, which is too bad because Bale's character was really awesome.I wasn't impressed with the cinematography, however, wardrobe, hair, props, were pretty awesome. But that shouldn't be the thing that holds the movie together. All in all, it was a decent escapist movie, but if you want a true character study done right, check out Revanche, or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. If you want to escape into the stereotyped party scene of the '70s watch Boogie Nights or Blow. If you've seen those, American Hustle might be a good fix.

The drum is beating relentlessly as the camera moves down narrow and shabby corridors, pauses in an actor's backstage dressing room, both of them seeming to have their best days long behind them, the movement, the claustrophobic space and the drumming intensifying to a foreboding, threatening atmosphere that turns this dirty underbelly of Broadway glamour into the darkness of a tortured man's soul. Michael Keaton who was Batman plays Riggan Thomson who was Birdman. A former movie star way past his prime trying to resurrect his career by turning to the stage, establishing himself as a serious actor and battling more himself, his diminished self-worth, his shortcomings as a husband and father than any outside pressure. His demons are with him – literally, in a move that quotes Keaton's Batman days. Keaton, a seemingly washed-up has-been plays a seemingly washed-up has-been – and he does so with a force, an honesty, a self-effacing radical relentlessness that would guarantee his an Academy Award almost any year (though perhaps not this one due to Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of Stephen Hawking). A man struggling between outside appearance and a growing inability to escape the inner voice, Keaton's performance is one for the ages.Alejandro González Iñárritu has the camera follow his protagonist with intricate and never- ending tracking shots as we accompany him through the labyrinth that is a theatre's hidden undergrowth and the maze of a trouble soul. The rhythm of the camera, the nervous pounding of the drum, the tortured dishevelment of Keaton's face all convey the sense of a human soul and mind becoming unhinged and struggling to recover any sanity he can muster. The existential fight of an individual navigating the shaky line between the personal and the public. González Iñárritu effortlessly moves from the naturalistic to the delusional and the dream-like fantastic as reality ans imagination become harder and harder to tell apart. He bridges that fragile frontier as well as time gaps in single, apparent unedited shots, time and space become fluid and as unstable as the protagonist's mind. Keaton is surrounded by a staler cast led by Edward Norton playing a sociopathic actor whose search for truth has turned him into an extremist in life and work. He is Keaton's nemesis, foil, catalyst to unleash his power. Then there are Emma Stone as Riggan's troubled and ever angry daughter, Zach Galifianakis as loyal friend and choleric manager, Naomi Watt's as a self-conscious actress impatient to make it and Andrea Riseborough as Riggan's lover torn between cynicism and a longing for closeness.As good as the cast is, the miracle this film is lies in its ingenious story-telling. How Alejandro González Iñárritu weaves camera, editing sound and Keaton's acting together, the way he combines drama, fantasy, comedy and satire (his portrait of the New York theatre industry is quite poignant), how he infuses it with New York's manic heartbeat and has it all mirror in Michael Keaton's face has not been seen in film before. In an Oscar year in which Richard Linklater redefined film making by stretching time beyond the hitherto feasible, González Iñárritu reimagines the possibilities of filmic story-telling. Birdman is one of those films where the critic's pen must fail. It needs to be more than seen, it has to be experienced as the complex and ridiculous symphony of light and dark, of the universal and the trivial, of the human condition and poignantly funny comedy that it is.www.stagescreen.de

A fantastic tale of festive wonder! For me, this film is the best adaptation of 'A Christmas Carol' to date. The enriching CGI helps unravel the classic tale of an old miser named Ebenezer Scrooge, who loathes Christmas and anyone who enjoys it. Accompanied by wondrous music composed by Alan Silvestri and perfect voice acting, the viewers are taken on a journey of joy, misery, fear and wonder in the world of a snow covered Victorian London. The Christmas ghosts also fulfill their roles in the film and some even manage to be truly scary! This movie manages to put you in the Christmas spirit while pulling you in and keeping you entertained.Definitely worth a watch and not to be missed!

The movie may be "hypocritical Bullshit", however Keanu steals the deal like always. His style is unmatched, "punchlines are awesome". He made the crap look like an authentic relic. Anyways it was just another derivation from a comic book "Hellblazer" which allows it to create any possibility for the real world. Well most of us do believe in Heaven and Hell, so whats the fact that the movie isn't great. Ideally some hype is given to any movie that is made out of the comic book character profile..............well to name Spiderman......who is my favorite superhero "too"..........is a major hype too. however we all relished it didn't we...........I'm sure there are thousands of people who really liked the movie but trying to deny the fact that such thing can happen in the real world. Well just try concentrating on Keanu a bit.....put yourself in his shoes...........what would you do............how do you like the movie now. By the way just imagine Keanu doesn't go ahead and sign any crap unless and until he believes in it himself..............so all you Keanu geeks come up and agree that the movie is actually cool.

Since many reviews have already been written and almost everything has been said on the matter, I have decided to list the most frequent complaints brought up by the reviewers and discuss them (of course not ad personam, but in general terms).Complaint 1 "The movie is too long given the fact it's based on a 300-page book."This would be a valid point if it weren't for one thing: the movie uses far more material than you will find in the Hobbit book. Here is a list of scenes that are not covered in this particular Tolkien's work or only alluded to: a) The whole prologue b) Azog c) Radagast d) Dol Guldur e)The White CouncilThat is actually a substantial portion of the movie. Of course PJ tried to explain that, but in vain. Critics had already declared: "it's too long and the decision was of financial nature". Well, of course it was. But PJ had other reasons for splitting the movie into three parts and that reason was a great amount of additional material that would make the Hobbit more profound and a tad closer to the LOTR movies. Getting rid of those scenes would simplify the story even further and there would be even more complaints about the story being not as gripping as the one in LOTR.Complaint 2 "There are sequences in the movie that drag, especially at the beginning of the movie."Now this is interesting. Recently I've read old reviews of the Fellowship of the Ring from which I've learned that the pace of the movie is … too fast. And actually - I agree with it. You have this impression that characters in FOTR were not introduced properly. This time PJ had this luxury to devote more time to character exposition. But a lot of people have already gotten used to this "music video-like pace" of the movies where there is no time to stop and get to know the characters - which is a shame as I enjoyed the whole sequence in Bag End and felt like in the past where directors did not have to rush anywhere and could build the mood of the movie properly.Complaint 3 "The movie does not have the magnitude of LOTR trilogy"Of course, it doesn't. It is based on a children's book. This complaint should be addressed to Tolkien himself, not to PJ. The Hobbit is merely an introduction to the Middle Earth: Sauron is still weak, there are no black riders or Witch-king of Angmar. Instead, the characters fight … trolls and goblins. This is our source material this time so comparing it to LOTR is pointless. Complaint 4 "The movie is childish and naive." As above. The movie is based on the book for children. Still PJ did his best to expand it and add extra material to make it more complex and interesting for adults.Complaint 5 "The movie strays away from the source material by making it darker than the book."It has to if PJ wanted to make it consistent with LOTR trilogy. But still it is closer to the book than LOTR was so I can't understand the criticism here. As an adaptation it is definitely a more faithful film than LOTR.Complaint 6 "The music repeats the same motifs from LOTR soundtrack."Yes, it does only when we see the characters known from LOTR trilogy. Another device used to make the Hobbit more consistent with previous films – which, in my opinion, is a good idea.Complaint 7 "The 48fps format makes it difficult for viewers to immerse in the world of Middle Earth."For me this issue is blown out of proportions. A lot of scenes look much better in 48fps (battle scenes or landscape scenes). There is less chaos and blur and in other scenes (Bag End) when everything looks "too real" it is just a question of getting used to the new look which shouldn't be that difficult given the fact that we can see a similar effect watching a movie on a high quality 200 or 400 Hz LED TV at home.Complaint 8 "The movie relies too much on CGi characters and does not look as real as LOTR."With this I can agree though I can understand that it was difficult to shoot scenes with Azog fighting dwarfs when filmmakers wanted to show the difference in height between them. Plus, more CGI gives a different feel to the movie emphasizing its different (less serious) character.ConclusionAll in all, this whole battle between enthusiastic reviews and extremely negative opinions which we are witnessing now resembles the situation when a famous music band, after releasing a seminal album, decides to produce something utterly different in style. A lot of people then are unable to embrace the change as they expected another record in the old style.Same with the Hobbit. When it comes to the quality of filmmaking, it is comparable to LOTR trilogy. But since the history is simpler and the movie has a noticeably different look and style (more humor + more CGI), many people express disappointment. Clearly, the movie should gain more positive reviews once people understand it is a different story from LOTR.

This is definitely a Wes Craven film and you can tell right from the start all the way until the end! There are no dull or boring parts in the entire movie. It's jam packed with lots of scary parts that will make you jump in your seat. There is also some neat historical background information in the movie as well. The makeup and effects are awesome in the movie and look 100% real. The Hills Have Eyes is now my number one favorite horror movie due to its suspense and action scenes. I won't tell you the ending, but the last 10 seconds of the movie is the best ending to any movie that I've ever seen. Let's just say there probably will be a part two to this movie...

I very wisely went into the cinema without high hopes. I have never liked Jim Carrey- he tries to be funny and fails so badly, that I want to rip out his spine and beat him to death with it. In the books (which were very good, I might add) Count Olaf is a terrifying, sadistic, selfish, evil maniac. Jim Carrey makes him 'funny'. Why?! It goes completely against Olaf's characteristics! Although I can't say I was surprised. This film was pretty much banking on people loving it because Jim Carrey was in it. It seemed rather random to just glue the first three books together in the way they did, especially since they messed around with the plot and changed the order of events. This is an excellent example of the way they ignore the books and just go off in their own damn direction. In my opinion, the film might have been better if they had just done the first book, and done it well; or at the very least, done it in a way that was less than awful. I was also annoyed beyond belief when I saw the actors playing the Baudelaire orphans. They look. Nothing. Like. The characters. Violet, aged 14 is supposed to have black hair and be quite a bit taller than Klaus, who is 12, wears glasses and also has black hair. But, Violet is the same height as Klaus in the film, they have brown hair and Klaus does not have glasses. Again, a complete disregard of the books and the way the characters are meant to be! I suppose I can let them get away with Sunny- the child who portrayed her was a bit too old in my opinion, but I'll let that slide. The ending was dreadful. The whole sentimental walk down memory lane when they visit their old home? And when Klaus gets their father's spyglass? Quick! The bucket! In short- film bad. Me no like.

While this movie was not great, I would say that it is very good. It did follow the book well for the most part. Although in the movie things happened that didn't in the book. In the movie Captain Fache was in Opus Dei, in the book he was not. This didn't quite work for me. And near the end of the movie when Langdon and Sophie are at Roslyn Chapple in Scotland, in the movie they make their way into a secret room and find all this incredible documentation of the Priory, and Langdon reveals to Sophie that she is indeed the living descendant of Jesus. The book didn't quite do it this way but it was eventually revealed to Sophie that she is a descendant. There were a few other minor things, but all in all it was well done. Some people have been saying that Tom Hanks might not have been the best choice for Langdon. I thought he did well, but maybe this was not the roll for him.All in all I like the movie and would recommend it..7 out of 10

I mean this movie is one gigantic bomb and the only reason why it's been nominated for Best Picture is because quasi-intellectual halfwits realize that telling the truth will remove "quasi-intellectual." It was so bad, so slow moving, so meritless beyond comprehension, I actually dozed off. For sure there have been great films about lawyers. How about "The Verdict" with Paul Newman? That was what I called a winner. And "Philadelphia?" Was not "Inherit the Wind" a masterpiece? That's just three out of so so many and if you think this monstrosity "Clayton" comes close, fuggediboutit.So help me, George Clooney doesn't change his facial expression for the entire movie.He looks as bored as I was. The plot was nearly impossible to follow, especially when one falls asleep trying to follow it but I do know it was about one big bad unscrupulous law firm representing the plaintiff versus Clayton's firm representing the defense and Clayton is a lawyer without portfolio because all he does is act as a point man and detective rolled into one. And he drives a Mercedes named "Smokey." As good as Clooney was in "Good Night and Good Luck," that's how awful he is in this celluloid annoyance. Heck, George is ususally Danny Ocean. In this film, he ain't a puddle. Instead of recommending this picture, try "Alvin and the Chipmunks" if they're at the same multiplex. I not only wanted a refund but demanded they pay me for subjecting me to such torture.

I am a religious person, and when I first heard about the content of this movie, I had very mixed feelings about whether or not to watch it.Well, I finally did. It was dull save for the storyline involving the armored bears. Good special effects, but they didn't jump out and give you a sense of awe like Transformers did that same year, or Pirates of the Caribbean and Spider-Man 3 for that matter.Even though they removed the words that might refer to religion and God, it was painfully obvious in imagery what the bad guys are. You don't need to see the word bear on a picture of one to know it's a bear. So, all the people worrying about how anti-religious it was: you were right. It was there. In this movie, religious people are control freak Nazi's while immature people with big mouths like Lyra are good. Granted, not all religious people are nice people, but in this movie, they were ALL bad and Orwellian tyrants and servants of tyrants.Lord of the Rings it was not, especially in a very flat final battle scene with no real sense of excitement like the Mines of Moria or the Battle of Pelennor from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.When I first saw David Lynch's Dune back in 1996, it wasn't the greatest of movies. But it had a good storyline, and it made me rush to read the book and it's sequels.After watching this tragedy, I have no interest whatsoever in reading the books.Oh, and any of you pro-Golden Compass fans that want to take me to task for loving the Lord of the Rings and sticking with my pro-religious anti-atheism stance and plan to email me your views: Shut Up. You aren't going to convert me.

Just watched it. I am Greek and teachers were busting our b...., about ancient Greece. I don't have an idea about ancient history and i don't care. I haven't read the comics and i didn't like 300. It was overblown and lost me in the middle of an endless fight with the same things over and over again. But this sequel, is the real deal. It is simpler. The fight scenes are tighter and punchier. Instead of giving a huge 100 minute battle, they divided it into 3 major battles. In between a minor back-story took place, which gave me breathing space and a lighter tone in the plot. Coming to the second best element of the movie: it is goofier than ever. Rise of an empire is not ashamed of its clichés. The actor lines are heard a gazillion times before in epic movies, so they keep them restrained. Less is more in this department. They speak when they have to and when they do, you either feel it or laugh with it. Yes, it is funnier. There is nothing wrong with a sex scene in an epic movie, there nothing wrong in a joke here and there, it is a Hollywood movie and a comic so you are supposed to laugh a little. Or a lot, in my case! Finally, it is totally and uncontrollably (in the end) entertaining. Yes i laughed, i sat with agony in my seat to see where this all goes to, i felt chills and this emotion in my gut (the same in every good epic story) and i watched in awe some of the best battle scenes i have ever saw. Instead of dismissing it for another epic movie, go and have some fun. And fall in love with Eva Green ;-)

I really enjoyed watching The Last Samurai. I never have any expectations from Tom Cruise, but in this movie he has pulled off quite a performance.Ken Watanabe is quite apt in his portrayal of the Samurai leader, although I must admit I did not know of him as an actor before this movie.The cinematography and the representation of the Samurai lifestyle is excellent. It is deeply engrossing to say the least.I'm not sure Tom Cruise's performance warrants an Oscar nomination, but it sure is one of his best!-Arvind.

Just watched the first chapter last night. Everything about it is great, the actors, the writing, the fact that it takes place in the FREAKING 80s (YES!) and all the music. The theme music is completely on point...very John Carpenter-ish with heavy synthesizer sounds that are very menacing. Watch this show, tell your friends to watch. It feels very Stephen King/Steven Spielberg..with some X-Files mixed in. I have never seen the kid actors before but they were all so good. Their on screen chemistry reminded me of the group of friends from The Explorers, Stand By Me or The Goonies but it's definitely not lighthearted or a comedy at all. It's always a good sign that a show is going to be good when you are completely sucked in within the first couple minutes. 10 out of 10 so far.

I will say up front I know nothing about Captain America, nothing about Marvel Comics, and I'm not a connoisseur of special effects.That all being said, Captain America was highly entertaining.Chris Evans is the scrawny Steve Rogers, who, after trying without fail to get into World War II, is chosen by a scientist, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) for an experiment called Project Rebirth. Steve is transformed into the superhuman to create the all-powerful man, who becomes Captain America. Dr. Erskine is assassinated by a HYDRA agent - HYDRA being the Nazi secret research.Initially Rogers is misused, sent out to sell war bonds. However, he abandons this when his good friend Bucky and his unit are caught behind enemy lines. Then he finally gets into the war as he has always wanted.Great cast, including Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Toby Jones, Neal McDonough, and Samuel L. Jackson.I really liked the effects, although I gather some people thought they weren't that good. What I liked the most was the old-fashioned ambiance, which was very well done.Enjoyable.

I could only give this film an 6 out of 10...because I just didn't find it that enjoyable: even though it was a well made film, it was just too real for me. And believe me: I am a person who LOVES horror and gore. I found HOSTEL to be much more enjoyable...and I find myself wondering why: did I think the victims in HOSTEL deserved their fate more than the victims in this film? Hmmm...makes me wonder if I'm getting soft in my old age. :) I really don't think I am, though: I still love watching Dario Argento's violent epics, so I don't it's softness creeping in. I also loved this (Alexandre Ajas)director's film X Tension (American version: High Tension). I think the "monsters" in this film had a certain sadness to them that the antagonist in HIGH TENSION didn't. Whatever: I didn't leave the theater today with the high I was feeling after I saw High Tension...that film left me with a real horror film rush. This one just left me feeling sad...I didn't go in to the theater expecting that.

Jeffrey Eugenides' novel is one of my favorites. I can't count the number of times I've read the book, written essays, etcetera... about the book, and others. I knew it was a film, but I never got around to seeing it until just the other day. I wasn't sure what to expect, from anything in the film.It was amazing. It was less than inches away when it came to being close to the book. Sure, it left out a few select things, but the time cuts and flow of the film was terrific.The actors were terrific, as well. Josh Hartnett was the perfect Trip Fontaine, Kirsten Dunst captured every aspect of Lux, and Giovanni Ribisi had the ideal voice for the narrator. That's just to name a few. As for filming techniques, it was flawless.I give this film a 9 out of 10, and recommend it to anyone who has a fancy for dark humor and serious themes.

I am writing this review purely so that the checklist will leave my profile. The Dark Knight is one of the more overrated movies out there, but it is very good and it easily surpasses the other two in its trilogy. While the complicated plots of each movie are large enough to leave room for potential plot holes, the holes in The Dark Knight are the least egregious, and often potentially filled in by "the joker did it," which, to be fair, is a pretty good defense. Further, The Dark Knight provides plenty of fairly interesting moral dilemmas for the viewer to chew on. The action and dialogue are both fine, and the atmosphere is good. The Dark Knight ultimately gets a 7/10 because it is very good: the viewer does not always know what will happen, and the viewer cares enough to be compelled; however, The Dark Knight does not do anything revolutionary or particularly bold, it simply does the job of a blockbuster superhero movie, but it does it very very well.

just wondering where the sudden rain and lightning came from when Viggo pushes John's car off the ledge on the docks. side question 0% of all millionaires go all the way across the city to a helicopter at the docks. love the movie just confused. if John is after me I would go somewhere other than my house to sit and wait.

Red Dragon is clearly on par with The Silence Of The Lambs. While Hannibal and Manhunter are both equally good in their own right, Red Dragon almost tops TSOTL. The film opens up with the capture of Lector and from then on grabs you and doesn't let. The time around Hopkins is more in vein with the Lector from Silence not the wise cracker in Hannibal. Edward Norton gives another Oscar Worthy performance as Will Graham. The scenes shared between Norton and Hopkins displays a good chemisty and an intesting battle of wits between two of the screen's finest actors. Ralph Finnes steals scenes with his chilling performace as the Dragon and the rest of the supporting cast is equally good. It's good to see the direction by Breet Ratner who has proven he will have a long carrer in Hollywood he has gone from action comedy to romantic comedy and succeds once again with this thriller. I give the film **** out of ****.

Unwatchable movies from unreadable books. What worse than watching this movie. I believe I will find out I have to read 3 books about this story for my college English class. Maybe, this is not my type of movie; the story unravels painfully slow. The story has very little explanation or direction. Focuses on depression with out reason. To dry for me. 2/10

Wreck-It Ralph is such a good movie, and it really does show that Disney doesn't really need Pixar to make good animation movies. The film tells the story of the titular 8 bit arcade game villain named Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly) who is tired of playing the villain, getting ostracize by his co-workers and force to live in ruins of his old stump. I like how John Reilly stumbles in his lines, but it still felt real to me. The movie does a great job visual to make it seem like 8 bit world, even to the point of using jerky motion that spoofs the limited animation cycles of 8 bit characters. He rebels against his role and dreams of becoming a hero. He sees that the only way he can be a hero is to game jumps to another game to win a medal to earn their respect. When the Arcade closes at night, video games characters in its games are allow leave their normal roles and are free to travel to other games through plugs that lead to a place known as Game Central Station, but have to return to their game in the morning, if not the game would seem broken, and in worst cases. Shut down. Since Wreck-It Ralph hasn't return, the game Fix-It-Felix Jr. is now in danger of just that. The hero Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer) is starting to think that Ralph went 'turbo'. Going 'turbo' is name for a video game character whom went to another game, and try to sabotaged it, causing both games to be shut down. He soon find out that Ralph has gone to a first-person shooter game call Hero's Duty. Hero's Duty is a Call of Duty, Halo, type of game, lead by Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch) where the game's winner receives a medal after fighting Cy-Bugs. Felix soon find out that he crash-land in another game called Sugar Rush, a kart-racing game similar to that of Mario Kart. Ralph searching for medal, meets Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a glitchy character whom like Ralph is shun by her game mates. Being PG makes Sarah Silverman so much more bearable, as she tend to too raunchy, but still Vanellope von Schweetz at first is such a annoying character, but the character's charm grow on you. It seems like a lot of critics hated her. I mean, she was annoying, but no more than a kid would be in most movies. Seriously, I swear most critics have completely mistaken her for an adult character because they constantly treat her like one, talking about how annoying she is when she's freaking nine! The way she acts is like how most 9-year-olds act! At least she was somewhat sympathetic. Ralph helps Vanellope build a kart to fight against it. King Candy (Alan Tudyk) the ruler of this world, refuse to let her participate, claiming that she is not really part of the game and her winning would cause the game to be shut down. Alan does a really good job on the voice, sounding more like Ed Wynn then his normal voice. This is where Ralph is force to decide about being the villain in the eyes of Vanellope to save her, or be the hero which will cause the end of both Fix-it Felix and Sugar Rush. A hard choice to pick. The final act has the most emotional and greatest twist to any movie that came out in 2012. The movie also contains a number of other video game references, to the point that I heard people calling this film the "Who Framed Roger Rabbit of video games" or "Toy Story with video game characters". The film includes characters, sight gags, and dialogues from games like Super Mario Bros, Paperboy, Sonic the Hedgehog, Pac-Man, Final Fantasy Q*Bert, Street Fighter and others. I geeked out quite a bit seeing them. My favorite reference is Metal Gear. How much cooler would the movie be, if the games were from a Flynn Arcade referencing Tron? To me the big name video game characters seemed a little tacked on because they didn't affect the story all that much, and that's a downer in a way. Of course the Copyrighted characters aren't in it for very long, but I think it's pretty impressive that they got as much as they did, but then again, this is the very growing media empire that is Disney we're talking about. While they didn't use the cameo characters to their highest potential. I almost feel it would have distracted the focus of the movie from the characters that the story revolves around to the established video games characters. I feel the cameos were not necessary, but at the same time it is icing on the cake. The movie works due to it's use of video game nostalgia, while building a clear colorful visual worlds where the characters can come in and out as they want. It's a visual spectacle. It was great for what it was: a child's movie covering adult themes with a video game background with humor that sharp. I think it would have been so much better if it focused on Ralph. He became a side-kick in his own movie when Vanellope comes in. There also so many story lines, and the romance of side-characters was so tacked on. Again, it's already a good film, but stating it could have been way cooler if it allow Ralph's journey to continue. Vividly creative setting and concept, extremely likable characters, but obscured by a kind of cliché attention-grabbing comic relief character for parts of it, but worth watching.

This Movie Was Awesome. It's A Great Movie For The Family To Sit Down & Watch. Its Funny and Grabs Your Attention. Very Age Appropriate, No Inappropriate Subliminal Like A lot Of These Children Shows. It's The Type Of Movie You Can Watch Over And Over Without Getting Bored. Has A Beautiful Love Story And Action Packed. It Teaches You Many Lessons About Life, & Changing Of Heart. I watched this movie with my brother and sister and they loved it. My mom even watched it and thought it was nice. Now my mom doesn't even like a lot of these new movies that's out and even she was able to watch this and laugh and enjoy it. Its a great movie for all ages which is why I gave it 10 stars. Great movies are hard to come by nowadays

When I saw this the first time I was expecting a solid action film but I got so much more than that. Every single thing about this film is well thought out and executed with class and that makes for a perfect movie experience. The cast is absolutely marvelous with Bruce Willis as one of (if not the) most likable action heroes in cinema history, John McClane and the ever excellent Alan Rickman as the suave yet merciless terrorist leader Hans Gruber and basically every actor does their job magnificently. Even Argyle the limo driver (I don't remember the actor's name) who looks like an obnoxious stereotype character at first turns out likable and even memorable. Behind the camera we've got John McTiernan whom had only directed the cult classic "Predator" and does an absolutely flawless job in the director's chair. The action is wonderfully gritty and realistic which is helped a lot by the refreshing vulnerability of the hero. He gets the crap beat out of him and he bleeds! Not to mention that this is maybe the most well paced film I have ever seen. You get to remember every character's name while there is more than enough action and plot twists to keep your eyes fixed on the screen. I don't know about you but I am thrilled from beginning to end every time I watch it.

Whats wrong with you guys? I know a lot of people out there don't like sequels, and I'm fine with that, but you all complain that its the same as the first, Lets see now,Men in black, protectors of the earth, from Alien bad guys, erm how are you going to make a sequel without following the same plot??? Agent J and K meet face to face with a human and take him fishin? come on settle down and relax, its a comedy, and how can you not laugh at frank singing I will survive, and barking at who let the dogs out?, stop looking for your own scripts of how things should be, and enjoy the directors storyline.........

John Travolta(Gabriel Shear),"Blow Out",81, was able to perform as an evil, misguided Robin Hood who enjoyed the wonderful company of Halle Berry(Ginger),"Race The Sun",'96. The director put everything into this movie that he could think of: Flying Bus, Computer puzzles to solve, lots of shoot it up action and torrid steamy scenes with Halle Berry. These two actors carried this picture on their backs. This film showed the public that John Travolta can perform in any role he is given a chance to act in. Sit back, enjoy and try not to be tooo critical with the plot. The ending is something like this: "Crime Does Not Pay".!!!

This remake is based loosely on the original movie by the same name with Haley Mills. The movie is OK at times, but at times it looks like the filmakers did not even follow the original movie. The acting is quite flat, as most of disney's live action movies nowadays. The two main people , Dennis Quaid and the actress who is the mother have been in better movies than this family junk!!Quaid was excellent was the movies "D.O.A.", "The Big Easy" to name a few!!If you like family movies , then watch it , but be advised the original one is better despite being 30 years old!!!Disney please stop remaking your classic movies please!!!If you do remake them , make them the same as the original movie!!

The inexplicable premise here is that a pretty and successful young woman chooses to have a one-night stand with an overweight, unemployed, pot-smoking doofus. Not only that, but after becoming pregnant, she wants to spend eternity with this loser. Furthermore, rather than being thankful for having snared a babe who's clearly out of his league, the unattractive slob lashes out at her. Although marketed as a comedy, the film really strives to be a penetrating and touching drama about relationships, but fails miserably due to stereotyped characters and a clichéd plot. Apatow's idea of humor is to insert the f-word into every line of dialog. Comedy or drama, the excessive length makes it drag.

After the Star Wars episode 8 Fiasco...is nice to be surprice out of nowhere with this movie... the stakes were high, you really felt the sorrow that humanity was feeling, it connected with some Alien filosofy about they being the ones that brought us here and also that they come from time to time to reset everything... it was good guys..a good Science Fiction movie indeed... it had everything, scary aliens, abductions, end of the world scenario, humans fighting together and against each other, heroes, aerial battles, Titan Fighting... really guys this movie was good...I really felt sorry for the Cyborgs ...it sound messy but its not.... if there ever is going to be an alien invasion... it would be for something like this and in this manner.... Its a must for all Science Fiction lovers.

I remember when I saw The Fifth Element first time when it came out as video and how dazzling experience it was and how different it were when compared in other Sci-fi films.I found this movie again from DVD sales bin and bought it just from the heck of it and boy, was I amazed how well it still does work for me. I laughed and enjoyed the action. The opera scene is just fantastic.In downsides some of the visual CGI effects have lost their edge, but in the other hand that does not matter, because the world itself in this movie looks like plastic and toys.This movie can be recommended for all, who like nicely flowingSci-fi/comedy action. 9/10

I know the storyline isn't the most important part of a good actionmovie, but Die hard 4.0 really showed that even these movies need at least some element of surprise. The storyline was about the corniest I've ever had to endure; An evil hackermastermind tries to collapse the computerized American system, to get very very rich in the process. This already wonderfully original storyline (yes, I'm being ironic here) gets even better with the kidnapping of McClane's daughter. I couldn't believe that even a Die Hard movie would treat it's viewers to such a lame storyline, so I kept waiting hopefully for a twist in the plot, needless to say, in vain. The biggest problem however was that the rest of the movie didn't manage to make up for any of these flaws, like sometimes is the case with other mindless actionmovies. The overabundance of computer animated actionscenes, often stretched far beyond any acceptable point of unrealism, made Die Hard 4.0 feel "plastic" and fake. This is not to say that the whole movie didn't have it's moments, but from movies like Die Hard, I expect to be taken for a roller-coaster ride of excitement that makes me forget that any time is passing at all while watching it. Instead I kept looking at my watch...

'Shutter Island' is a suspenseful thriller that holds up to films such as 'The Sixth Sense'. Of course, that should be the very least you get when you put a legendary director like Martin Scorsese on the job. This is a film that will have you thinking and guessing even after you've left the theater. An amazing mind trip that takes the viewer into the surreal labyrinthine hell that is Shutter Island in the eyes of Edward "Teddy" Daniels, a U.S. Marshall investigating the strange disappearance of a patient at the Ashecliff Hospital for the criminally insane.Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant in the lead role of this film. It is easily his best performance since 'The Aviator' in 2004. His performance is one of the most down to earth, believable ones in recent memory. When he emotes he doesn't downplay or exaggerate for the sake of the film. He reacts in ways I could easily imagine a real person. DiCaprio may not have starred in a movie nearly as successful as 'Titanic', but as far as acting is concerned he is 10x the actor he was in 1997.Scorsese is a genius. That goes without saying it. Martin Scorsese ranks up with the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, and Orson Welles as far as influence of cinematic techniques is concerned. Some were disappointed by Shutter Island, saying that it doesn't live up to Scorsese's reputation. I don't think there is anything wrong with the directing in this film.The decision of composer and Scorsese-collaborator Robbie Robertson and Scorsese to use only classical music for the film is very Stanley Kubrick, but it also works very well in Shutter Island. Every piece of music manages to capture the scenes. It is a marvel how they make these pieces almost seem as if they were written for the film.Make sure to give 'Shutter Island' two viewings, and don't let the first viewing define your view of the film. You will learn most from the film after two viewings spread out over a period of time. After seeing this movie for the second time, having thought over the first viewing for a period of six months, the film took on a new dimension of greatness. Somethings become more clear, while others remain a mystery.Don't write this film off after one viewing. If you do, you're missing out on the power of Scorsese's fresh masterpiece.

I never saw How to Train Your Dragon in the theater. However, I did watch it when it came out on DVD. Having not heard much about the film and not knowing anything about its story or any of that, I didn't have any expectations prior to watching it. However, I ended up loving it. In fact, in my opinion, DreamWorks has surpassed Pixar with this film.The story is very simple, predictable, derivative, and clichéd, and it's a total retread of basic cinema clichés, but it works, and I found it entertaining and immersive. There is not much depth, story development, or character development, but it's still pretty effective as it is. Also, the wonderful animation helps contribute to the emotion and energy of the story. So, overall, to sum this up, this film works in many of the same ways that James Cameron's Avatar worked, and in fact it works much better. They both consist of simple, predictable, and clichéd stories. They don't have much depth, story development, or character development (like I just said above). However, the stories are sufficient, well-structured, well-paced, and coherent, and they flow and make sense.The characters are not developed much, but they are sufficient and very likable. Also, both use brilliant visuals and keen detail to tell their stories and bring emotion into them. Although I do have to admit that HTTYD has a somewhat better script and better dialogue. Also, like Avatar, HTTYD doesn't go much into the depth and backgrounds of the characters, or much into any of that stuff, but a lot of that stuff - character background, personality, relationships, etc. - are evident in the detail. So, given all of this, I think it would be safe to say that, in many ways, HTTYD is the Avatar of 2010.Now, HTTYD doesn't have a new world, like Pandora, but it does have beautiful scenery all the same. Also, it has the lovable dragon Toothless, who is a full character in the film. He was excellently designed, and is very cute and lovable. In addition to excellent physical design, has a great personality, is smart, and has an excellent balance between that of a person and that of an animal. He is a great character, and, in fact, the most memorable character in the film. The voice actors all put on good performances, and they really help bring out their characters with their voice. Jay Baruchel did a very good job as Hiccup. A lot of people say that his voice is annoying, but I personally disagree. I actually kind of like his voice, and it's just right for the character in the movie, Hiccup, who is very likable. The other voice actors did an equally good job with their characters too, such as Gerard Butler as Stoick the Vast, America Ferrera as the likable and beautiful Astrid (Hiccup's love interest), Jonah Hill as Snotlout, and some others.Like I said before, the animation is absolutely beautiful. John Powell composed and excellent music score for the film. As for the target audience: everyone - in many ways, it's like a kids movie, but in others it's pretty mature. Also, being a good comedy, it has some good humor. But it doesn't let the humor get too abundant. The humor is spaced out throughout the film and given at appropriate intervals, and is balanced excellently with the story, drama, emotion, and moral messages, much like The Iron Giant was. In fact, the film has a lot of similarities to The Iron Giant, and it works for many of the same reasons that movie works. Everything about the movie is very well balanced.Overall, I love this movie. It's a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good- hearted, and visually beautiful. It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés. Also, it has great staying power - it's one of those movies, like Ghostbusters, that never really gets old on repeated viewings. Unfortunately, DreamWorks plans to make a sequel to it. Wow, way to go, DreamWorks, ruining the best film you've ever made. Please don't make that sequel. This is the type of movie that's just best left alone. Leave a good thing alone.One final note: I've only seen this movie in 2-D. I've never seen it in 3-D, and guess what? I don't want to. Aside from the usual fact that 3-D is unnecessary, this movie is so awesome that it doesn't need 3-D.My Rating: **** (out of ****)For more reviews, visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com

First of all, I have not seen her in the Twilight movies, but Kristin Stewart is an insipid actress. This is my opinion wholly formed during this movie. This is not a bad thing, necessarily: Keanu Reeves has made a pretty decent career out of being a mostly insipid actor. The Matrix is an excellent example of surrounding such actors with really good material that lets you ignore the terrible acting. This movie is not the Matrix.This movie felt to me like someone had a bunch of really cool ideas for visual images (and they are very cool and well done) but didn't really have a coherent narrative to connect them or give much thought to reasons for these images to be present. The director also obviously schooled all his actors in the fine art of yelling as a substitute for emoting subtly. Charlize Theron impressed me with subtlety in Monster. Here, she and every other actor will yell lines for emphasis and as a substitute for emotion. It gets rather silly most of the time.There are also a number of inconsistencies with the story. What exactly is Snow White's superpower or why is she special, aside from being apparently super hot (hammered home with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer through the course of the movie)? Why is it necessary to have two possible male leads mooning over Snow White? Surely either the Huntsman or William would suffice by themselves? It's as if the studios spent so much money for Kristen Stewart that they have to protect their investment by hiring two men per movie to be romantically interested in her to make the audience believe she's worthy of being the leading lady. Why is the Huntsman physically weaker than the queen's brother at some instances, and strong enough to repel several soldiers in another? What is the point of most of the pretty locations Snow White travels to (where she is also instantly tracked by the queen's men) aside from visual eye candy? What was the point of the dwarfs, aside from letting them crawl through a gutter for Snow White? Why does K-Stew wear full body armor and leave her head unprotected for any archer to pick off? Why does the queen's obviously superior army need to fear a group of at most 80 people marching on her heavily fortified castle? After going through an elaborate charade to poison Snow White with the apple, why does the queen stand and make a speech about love and betrayal instead of efficiently ripping out Snow White's heart and becoming immortal forever? And most fundamental of all: why is Snow White even kept alive after the queen kills off the king and his loyal retainers? Surely keeping progeny of a beloved monarch alive to grow up and head a rebellion seem far too obvious for someone like the queen, who claims to have subdued many kingdoms?In a nutshell, this movie had some cool visual effects but not much else to recommend it. Watch only if desperate for something to watch this summer.

Watchmen turned out to be an engrossing film, one definitely worth seeing. I have to say, I wasn't enthusiastic about watching it at first. It's based on the great graphic novel by Alan Moore. It's widely considered to be the best graphic novel ever. Films adapted form great literary works usually don't turn out well. The film also didn't have a big budget. More money was thrown at making Iron Man (2008) and The Dark Knight (2008), for example. This doesn't matter though because Watchmen surpasses all comic book films in terms of professionalism. Zack Snyder is a good action director. Just watch 300 (2007) for proof. With Watchmen he demonstrated that he is just a good director overall. He works well with actors. The acting in the film is almost universally excellent. Everyone gets to shine. Even Malin Akerman had her moments. Not one character feels like a throwaway. All this is further complimented by the good choices in costumes. No one can deny that the heroes in Watchmen look cool. The CGI is excellent too. Be it Doctor Manhattan or Nite Owl's airship, everything looks just right. Snyder staged some truly impressive dramatic scenes. The use of music is inspired. The score by Tyler Bates is obviously fitting, but the choices in songs may surprise some people. I, however, think that the songs are just right. It was good to hear Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changing" at the beginning and Leonard Cohen's "First We Take Manhattan" at the end. What made me like the film even more is its cinematography by Larry Fong. The look of each decade was captured perfectly. The 1980s are somewhat dark in the film's alternate reality though. Nuclear war seems close, and society is sick. To all this is added the sweet look that's also present in the graphic novel. There are many images in Watchmen that are memorable, even unforgettable. There are so many interesting details that I couldn't wait to watch the film more than once to pick up what I missed on first viewing. Thankfully, Snyder didn't change the politics and observations of the graphic novel for the film. Some parts are missing but the endeavour is still a thought-provoking two-and-a-half hours. Plus, it has a clear narrative. This is a comic book film for mature audiences. It stands above other comic book films because it's smart and because it tackles some of the most important issues, even mankind's existence. Watchmen was expertly made, there is a lot to like about it. I respect it and I like it more than any other superhero motion picture. It gets a high recommendation from me.

I was actually very disappointed in this movie. It did not seem to have the same chemistry between the actors as the previous movies. Many of the main characters only had bit parts. There was too much Harry and not enough of the others. What makes a movie great is all the subplots. The previous movies had them but not this one. It made for a long and almost boring in parts movie. The previous movies I have watched again and again. This one I fell asleep three times, and will probably not bother watching again. Sorry, I love the Harry Potter cast, just like to see more of the others and not all just Harry. This book was the longest book in the series so why did they make it the shortest movie in series? I agree about the acting of the main three being better. Radcliff has really improved. He is really putting emotion into acting now. A few subplots that involved the other actors would of improved this movie.

What stood out for me was a realism I don't remember seeing before. It was the realism of the townsfolk. They were observers, participants and mourners. They had their property and family to protect, but how best to do it when their town is moving into an inenvitable conflict?This western wasn't about shoot-em-up gunfights with lots of realistic blood. It was about feeling the emotional struggle of survival in a place where law and power were obtained without rules. Its about facing fear and having a cause that overcomes the fear. Its about watching your kids watch the bodies removed from the street after the fight. The realism is in the believable way you feel from the various viewpoints.And the humor is great and appropriate.

I really wanted to go see this movie (via theaters) but now already seen it. Due to Sex and the city 'The Movie' book version. Was up at bookstore and decide to thumb through it. Just assuming it was only going to be talking about how they made the movie and a basic storyline.Oh NO ~ The Book was basically the script (including filmed shoots). I couldn't believe it. It was like being in the theater without the darkness, popcorn, and a significant other to hold the drinks.I would give this movie (going on not seeing every single shoot) ~ 1 Thumbs up ... just for me there was really no big difference of them putting it on the big screen versus just having HBO produce and run it as a TV movie.

What kind of person does it make me when all movie long I just want to see children die in horrible ways? Well, no matter what it makes me, you can blame the filmmakers for it.If you read any of the reviews here you will see a common theme. Not many people identified with the thug punks and therefore felt completely alienated from the film from the word go. Thereby making it impossible to find any redeeming values in it.Before you sit down to watch this movie, put away all sharp instruments. I say that because after 5 minutes of listening to a group of angry snot-nosed punks trying to sound tough and cool, you will be reaching for that knitting needle to puncture your own eardrums. "do you get me bruv? ".Ah F it, I'm done. I've spent enough time on this movie as it is...

Why shouldn't "wunderkind" scribes be invited to direct? Nobody did Troy Duffy any favors letting him bring this pretentious, laughable piece of crap to the screen. I'm afraid his 15 minutes may be up.Comparing this to "Reservoir Dogs" is like comparing "Ice Castles" to "Run Lola Run" because they both featured female athletes.

So I finally watched this movie. It has been on my to watch list for literally years now. And I am speechless. Just speechless. And not speechless in the good kind of way, as you have probably guess by my title and ranking for the film. While watching the film I was only thinking two things. First, whoever wrote the script is an idiot. Second, Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena save this movie. Everything about the movie expect the acting is awful. There is so much wrong with the film that I don't even know where to begin. I mean, it is just one of those movies where there is so much wrong with the script that it isn't even funny. It is a story about two cops in LA and that's pretty much it. But the problem is all the stupid little things that take you out of the film. For example, the main police officer is filming everything for whatever stupid law school reason or whatever and then they explain why they're wearing body cameras and I'm like okay, that is just a lazy way of justifying why this film is going to be shot in a first person perspective. But then the stupid film isn't even shot like that! And to make things better, all the stupid gang members have cameras and are filming everything! WHAT THE HELL? There is literally no reason why you would need that to happen because the film doesn't need them to be filming because it isn't even a first person perspective film anymore! It was like that director didn't know what the hell he was going to do with the film and it just comes off as a joke. I was going to give the film a 5 out of 10 stars but I'm going to knock off an extra star because of how stupid that whole camera business is. And then there is the idiotic script. A cop gets into a fight with a gang member for no reason and the gang member doesn't report him? Honor and bullshot isn't a real thing when it comes to gang culture. I know Hollywood loves to glorify gangbanging cowards because of whatever but that part of the script just screams of stupidity. Next, the gang consisting of 2 guys and 2 girls or whatever. Right. Yeah, right. There are girl gangs and there are guy gangs but a mixed sex gang is purely there for the novel angle. I know, I know, girls can do what guys can do but just go and watch a few documentaries about gangs from LA if you don't believe me. Oh, and just because a police office on the street is a strong female then that makes her a lesbian by default? Man, this script just pisses me off. It was like this cr#ppy screenplay was written by a clown surfing wikipedia for a day or two. Yeah, the script is the biggest problem. The directing is the next biggest issue. Thankfully the lead actors are great actors. If it wasn't for them I would have stopped watching after a few minutes. I have no idea why this movie is even ranking a 7. Are people ignoring all the logic problems with the film or just idiots into gangland action flicks? At the end the main cops are killing their way out and not grabbing the automatic weapons? Or not jacking the car of the guy they just killed? Just so many logic gaps like that are what take you out of the movie... unless you're just watching the film to get off on the action. Whatever. There is a reason why Transformers movies make as much money as they do.

**Possible Spoilers Ahead**Batman Returns premiered three or so years after the acadamy award winning original (BATMAN 1989), of course, like all or most sequels, it turned out a little on the wrong side of the yard.Batman Returns is an interesting film, because, a lot of reviews compare it to its predecessor, and, i think that it is because of this, that this film got so much negative feedback.Its a new Gotham City, almost crime ridden, apart from a mysterious Penguin man of the sewer (Danny DeVito) and a new crime boss exec, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). Add to the mix a new on the scene good/bad/in the middle figure, Catwoman (Michelle Phiffier) and, of course, the Dark Knight (played again magnificently by Michael Keaton), and you have a seemlessly hit flick to rival it's original, or, even top it. Or so i thought...Once again, its good to look at visually. But once again, i was a little disappointed that Batman was again used as a support character for the two villains. It once again didnt explore that inner fuel of what makes Batman tick, and the story was a visual disaster, not much for the actors to work with.I cant believe that Daniel Waters wrote this script. What was he thinking. Penguin man who hides in the sewers? Drinks and spits vile, eats raw fish? Bites peoples noses? This character was a little to much Tim Burton, ala Edward Scizzorhands, and not like the comic book counter part, who is smug, posperous and a genuine criminal, Danny DeVito's portrayal was that of a monster, a hybrid.Catwoman, apart from Joker in the original, was actually done correctly, the only villain done correctly in my personal opinion.Overall, Batman Returns is a film on its own. Dark, Mysterious. Not Batman! No, Batman wasnt supposed to be like this. I havent seen it as many times as the original, but i still enjoy viewing it for its originality, but like all sequels, it was a little case of "too big a budget, too big a flop". Its a little disapointing, a little sad, and ultimatly, the end of Michael Keaton's reign of being Batman (The best Bat of all?)If you havent already, catch Batman Returns, but remember, its dark, has dark hidden jokes, and isnt the way Batman is supposed to be portrayed. Overall...***OUTOF*****Enjoyable

Tim Burton has been quoted as saying that the budget of "Corpse Bride" was about "two-thirds less than any computer film," which can cost in excess of $100 million, but that "story, not cost, should determine how a film is be made." Bunk. Burton's puppets never came to life for me - not even the "live" ones. The look and feel of this movie is one of a cheap, creepy comic book rediscovered in a damp basement. The color palate was dismally and needlessly dull. Put it alongside Triplets of Belleville and it pales by comparison - literally. Infusion of some sepia tones for the "upstairs" characters might have provided the exciting transition we loved in the Wizard of Oz's fade from black (and white). The soundtrack was forgettable, save for an all-too- brief piano duet. The story suffered as so many characters were introduced and very few were allowed to develop. And I felt cheated knowing that Johnny Depp was a star of this film but was being held prisoner by a 2-dimensional stop-action puppet. The best part of this film was a corpse dog and as cute as he was, I'm not sure he covered the price of admission.

I'm sure lots of people will go to the theater looking to see a nice shot of Tom Cruise's backside or Nicole Kidman's goodies, or perhaps they'll be lured by the chance they'll get to see soft-core porn on the big screen. These people will be highly disappointed by the fact that this film is incredibly erotic without being extremely illicit. As usual for Stanley Kubrick, the film is full of tastefulness and amazing camera angles that show you just how much characterization and suspense can be built through solid camera work. If you are searching for passionate sex scenes, look elsewhere; if you have a true desire to see a master of moviemaking performing using every bit of talent (actors included) he can muster, you will thoroughly enjoy yourself.

How many of us doesn't like a good love story with some humour & some melancholy. I think the rom-coms of the 30s, 40s & 50s are amongst the best in Hollywood history. We have such precious gems such as Adam's Rib, Roman Holiday, It Happened One Night, My Man Friday & the list goes on. The next 3 decades saw a decline in this genre save some rare exceptions such as Annie Hall. But the last 2 decades saw a revival of sorts. I think the success of When Harry Met Sally & Pretty Woman has a lot to do with this.I like many rom-coms from the last 2 decades but if you ask me to name 3 movies that I absolutely adore from the last 21 years, I would say 10 Things I Hate About You, My Sassy Girl (not the English version but the Korean version Yeopgijeogin Geunyeo) & Serendipity.I actually saw Serendipity for the 1st time only a year after its release. At that time I haven't seen many rom-coms & also I wasn't thinking about movies in a critical way analysing their good, bad & ugly. It was just some rom-com which I was seeing to waste some time. But by the first 15 minutes, I started to love the movie. Partly because of the interesting start but more importantly due to Kate Beckinsale about whom I never heard of before & who will always remain my 1st Hollywood crush.Serendipity is directed by Peter Chelsom & written by Marc Klein. While shopping for Christmas, strangers Jonathan Trager (John Cusack) & Sara Thomas (Kate Beckinsale) try to buy the same pair of gloves at a store. After Jonathen gives them to her, they feel some kind of attraction towards each other although they already have their lovers. So they spend some time with each other by eating & skating. When the shamelessly flirting Jonathan proposes to exchange their numbers, Sara has a better idea. She makes him write his name & number on a $5 note & gives that note in a shop. She says that she will write her name & number on a book that she will sell the next day. So if they are destined to be with each other, they will find other's contact someday. They leave each other after this AMAZING BRILLIANT idea.After a few years, Jonathan is engaged to Halley Buchanan (Bridget Moynahan) & Sara is about to get engaged to Lars Hammond (John Corbett). All these years they do think about each other but they don't even know their full names to find each other. After seeing some 'signs', both of them decide to try for one last time to find each other. Jonathan has his friend Dean Kansky (Jeremy Piven) to help him & Sara has her friend Eve (Molly Shannon). Do they find each other? If so will they leave their respective partners who are such good people? See the movie for answers although I know anybody could guess what happens at the end of a rom-com.John Cusack & Kate Beckinsale have very little screen time together but whenever they do share a scene they share good chemistry. Their roles are not meant to win an Oscar & they deliver what's required. The best part in acting comes from the supporting cast. I loved the role of Dean Kansky. Molly Shannon as Eve was also very good. Eugene Levy has a very funny cameo as sales man in the movie.Another thing for which I like the movie so much is its score. It is composed by 2 time Academy award nominated Alan Silvestri who is one of the busiest in the business. This is not his best by any means. He has given background to such movies as Forrest Gump, Back to the Future series, The Polar Express amongst others. But the music in Serendipity is different & it caught my attention.If at all there is one thing to improve, it is the dialogue of the movie. It is kind of mishmash wherein some scenes I like it & in some other scenes I hate. Some of the dialogue at the start is so sugary that you wouldn't eat anything sweet for a few hours.Coming to the story, the only problem with the story is the probability of its occurrences. It's all fate fate fate fate in the movie. In fact IMDb has this movie under fantasy genre & rightly so. You would never see so many coincidences in a story to move it forward. They could have mentioned in the movie that the main purpose & existence of the universe is to somehow unite Jonathan & Sara. If you don't give much thought to the improbability of the story, you will definitely enjoy this.Many of you may disagree with my rating, but it's like a first love to me where the good things always appear magnified & the faults diminished.Love to hear what you have to say about Serendipity, http://amarsmoviejournal.blogspot.com/

This is one of my favourite movies so far. I have seen a lot of romantic movies about teen love, but this is the one impressed me the most! It is not just about love, you can find many things much more than that in this movie. My mind was heavy after watching this movie, i never expect such a movie to touch me so much. I did not cry, oppositely, i am very happy, because they experienced true love once in there life, and this is enough. Jammy not only changed London, but also me. I started to reconsider what i am doing now, what are my dreams, what is my faith. Anyway, highly recommend this movie, every teenager should watch it!

Well.......what can I say?How about the best film of the recent years?After seeing the 1988 John Waters version, I was unsure how a remake would fair but due to the toe tapping catchy songs and the brilliant dances I gotta say it beats it by a mile! I think newcomer Nikki Blonsky was wonderful playing Tracy Turnblad, and if this performance is anything to go by I know this ain't the last we'll see of her! The most underrated person by far in Hairspray has got to be Queen Latifa, who completely blew me away. Her stunning performance of !I know where I been" was absolutely full of emotion and I defy anyone to think this was not one of the best songs in the entire film.Overall I think the whole film just oozed 60sness from the work go and the songs are absolutely brilliant and I just want everybody to go out and buy the DVD so they can see how fabulous it is!

And this is something different. Actually, no films are different these days, but it has succeeded to shape differently with an already known platform. Except the small parts of the opening and the ending, the rest of the story takes place in a postmortem room and its building. It is a one night story and revolves around two characters, a coroner father and his assistant son. After receiving an unidentified body to examine, the son decides to stay back with his dad by dropping out the plan to go a date with his girlfriend. As the procedure begins, the night goes on. But at the half way through, they begin to experience the strange events. And once it goes beyond their hands, they try to survive the threads that come their way which pretty much the rest of the film.A short and sweet horror. I mean no sweet, but very effective theme. There are lots of things you won't understand, even the film does not explain them for us. But if you sit back and think about them after you have watched it, you would get many perspectives, like about the corpse, and what happened at the end. I could have revealed mine in here, but it would only spoil your watch if you are yet to see it. Overall, there's nothing serious you are going to miss any details. Except one question that nobody sure about is who is/was Jane Doe, I mean her background story that linked to this film event. Only a prequel would explain that. So I hope they make one quickly. Meantime, don't miss it if you're looking for a decent horror film. Because it's much better that any recent horrors.7/10

i always loved movies based on Marvel comics like Spiderman, punisher, generation x, captain America and more and i hope now they 'r so good, i hope that one day they want to create a movie like Spiderman and the x-men, or spiderman and the hulk or something like that, or maybe something like superman and spiderman or so. now that must be a great movie...

Passable action comedy, certainly not as bad as its reputation suggests. The emphasis is on the action, with some good stuntwork, but there a few mildly funny comic bits as well. Although he works with recycled material here, Eddie Murphy comes through with a likable performance, and the direction is less loud and aggressive, more well-balanced and cool than Tony Scott's work in "BHC II". (**)

This is a brilliant movie for anybody who believes in the goodwill of fate, love at first sight or simply in love. Let's hope that somewhere, somehow it is "possible to touch someone and never to let go again. To hold someone, not for a moment but forever in a world where everything is fleeting, painful and treacherous. And for the sake of that small possibility you must be willing to risk everything, to break through, to walk into the night naked..." (Andre Brink from 'An Instant in the Wind')

This movie is OUTSTANDING. And so is Colin Firth, I freely admit! The film I saw previous to The King's Speech was Tron Legacy, and this movie had more tension in the first two minutes than Tron had in its entirety. And after that, The King's Speech just gets better and better. If anyone had told me that a movie about a guy stammering could be this good, I would never have believed them. Seriously - you have to see it with your own eyes, because it sounds pretty lousy. Colin Firth is astonishing, but every other part is played to perfection and Geoffrey Rush is superb.Moving, funny, dramatic and compelling throughout. Deserves every award it picks up and - for once - the huge score it's getting on IMDb.

I'm really glad Arnold Schwarzenegger needed money for his campaign :-) Just like in the other two Terminator movies, Schwarzenegger is casted perfectly as a killing machine from the future. Schwarzenegger's presence in an action movie is usually enough for me to like the movie, but for those of you who disagree, there's still plenty of reasons to go see this movie. From beginning to ending this movie is worth watching. The car chase scene is violent and destructive, the way we like it, same for the fight scenes. The writer is careful not to create any inconsistencies caused by the time travel, and references to the other movies and to a (possible?) future seem to be correct. Indeed, this is not just a 2 bit action film script, no, the story by itself makes this movie worth watching. There's some good jokes in the movie, some funny situations, a running gag with sunglasses and Arnold's way of handling oneliners. This all without interfering in other aspects of the movie, as is usually the case in action films. This is a must-see, but before you see this one, make sure you've seen Terminator I and II.

Amazing. That pretty much sums it up. The number of films that move me the way this film moved me can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The scenes, the breathtaking scenery (I've never seen landscape shots like this anywhere!), the characters, the emotions, everything.11 out of 10 :-)

This movie is for family and children but it is enough for adults to enjoy watching the movie. One day, a pig is received by a old man as a prize. At first, the man think the pig will for a dinner on Christmas day. The pig is raised by sheepdogs and the old man at a stock farm. The scene is calm. There are many animals with the pig. The pig, named Babe is very clever so I was fascinated with Babe. The old man is kind so he loves the pig gradually. The pig succeed in many things and he get to be trusted by other animals. What I liked in this movie is that all animals can speak fluently like people, it was nice and very interesting. The expressions are just like animals have real feelings. The musics witch are used in the movie are also nice. After watching this movie, I thought each animal has their heats and feeling. Animals also have their society and classes. We should be friendly with animals more even mice. Since I watched this movie at only 5 years old for the first time, I watched this movie many times. If you watch this movie, you must think animals are so lovely. You will also be fascinated with Babe and other animals.

This movie is great in a lot of ways the wrestling moves were pretty real and the acting felt natural and they did make up corny lines which was enjoyable if there is anything bad about this movie it would be that there wasn't enough fights and the drug usage is quite real looking but it puts out a message that any one who thinks pro wrestlers are clean are totally mistaken. I have got to watch this one again its one of those movies that you have to see again to see if you missed out on anything. I think i still need to give credit that this is a low budget film and doesn't have much if any CGI effects so don't expect to much.But do yourself a favor and watch this one it is a true classic that people will flock to see

I went to watch this movie with a couple of friends; and by the end of first half hour, I was ruing the moment we made the decision to watch it. The main reasons are: 1. Kristen Stewart: Even though I'd read that she has plastic face which is incapable of expressing any emotions except maybe a crooked smile, I'd never thought the situation was so bad. Yesterday was the first time I realized that expression of emotions / acting can actually make a difference. She really sucks! I was just not able to connect with the movie as the main character seemed so artificial! 2. The movie itself: The new take on Snow White tale was good, but poorly brought together as a film. The dialogues and their delivery seemed corny. The characters, most of them, seemed to be forced into their roles. The acting was so bad that it was evident no one put their heart into their roles.I normally like most movies; rare are those which I despise. And this was one of those. I'd seriously advise readers to save your money for any movie, but this!

Despite some good performances from the two leads, without them this would be a pretty poor film. The story is poor and predictable with an unnatural sounding script a lot of the time, typical of these US teen movies, although it does have a few instances of credibility.The main problem, however, is that it just isn't very funny most of the time, a problem for a 'comedy'!!! The Grease inspired dancing at the 'prom' seems out of place, and the characters are just too one-dimensional. I really dislike the constant bombarding of teen films portraying High School life in such a stereotypical way, and with the constant obsession of the importance of getting being these 'perfect' students.....planning for the perfect future, total emphasis on a love life (have you ever noticed how in nearly all these films the kids get into the few top Universities, and how despite being only 18 at most they have Dawson Creek style meaningful 'relationships'.School just isn't as clean cut in segregating student types (geeks, jocks e.t.c), and the problems and aims of teenage life are much more complex and diverse than all these films show. American Pie managed to overcome these similar types of flaws because it had that single advantage of being a much more constantly funny film.........with the internet scene!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is obvious that many South Park fans will watch this film expecting to be greeted with the same crude humour. They wont be disappointed. However while Bigger , Longer and Uncut featured an almost non-stop barrage of jokes, Team America makes attempts to handle serious issues. This is where Team America fails. The film is at its best when it tries to be funny. The songs are also hilarious and well written, my favourites being Pearl Harbor Sucks and I'm Lonely. Due to a lack of jokes towards the middle of the film it becomes slightly boring. However don't give up watching it as you will be treated to some of the best jokes of the entire film. Don't compare it to the superior South Park film . If you don't you will enjoy what Team America has to offer. What it does well , it does very well.

This is a GREAT movie about a very plausible situation. A MUST-SEE!! An Alien ship, transporting hundreds of Thousands of Alien population malfunctions and they are obliged to land here on earth. This is an important detail, because later on you will get to understand that they are both technologically and socially much more advanced than us, and they would have not chosen earth as a destination. Actually as they were maneuvering a smaller aircraft coming from the main ship lands, but that is a minor detail that will only become major later. In any case we get to the main ship and bring the aliens down to earth, they were weakened and needed food, so the decision was made to transport them all down to a refugee camp as a 'temporary measure' they somehow were able to breath fine, and particularly enjoyed cat food. The main ship remains afloat Johanesburg in South Africa and down below the Aliens live in a camp that quickly turns into a funky slum. What is great about the movie is making the transition between Alien exotica and 'everyday Alien", we see them interchanging with humans, trading, and constantly moving about. Although they look like human sized lobsters, and are referred to as "Prawns" they pretty much have the same configuration as ours. The movie starts actually a full twenty years after the 'landing' so all the glamor of news and novelty is gone and the South African Government is just trying to move them to another district, further away from their capital city by forced eviction. At this point the man in charge of the operations, Wikus Van De Merwe played by Sharlto Copley gets infected by a canister that contains a liquid two of the aliens had been hard at work for a long time. He does not know this, he thinks they are gangsters because their hut is full of computers and weaponry, but in reality they are the scientists amongst the aliens that have been working all this time to fix the spaceship, when he accidentally sprays some of the contents on himself he starts triggering a genetic reaction that will slowly change him into one of the creatures in a slow but very visible way. The strong, excellent performance by Wikus is what makes it believable, he is a totally square and regular guy, actually pretty good natured and in the process of this horrific change he maintains his humanity and sanity and has a complete change of heart in his relationship to the Aliens, as he is forced by circumstance to 'bond' with the one scientist who was involved in making the liquid, and his small son.The film is important in showing the complexities of the exchanges with the Aliens and covers full well the political intrigue and inhumane behavior that is part of our present state of evolution. It starts out very slow and is not particularly great in the introduction of this information, so that at one point I was getting very impatient, but then started to enjoy the flow of the story. The turning point was the intervention of the liquid that changes Wikus and everything about the movie from that point forward. A rare instance in SciFi where violence is not gratuitous and all the tech makes perfect sense. It will doubtlessly become a cult film.

Wong Kar-wai's romance-drama, Chungking Express (1994), is story told in in two parts, each consisting of two Hong Kong policemen who are heartbroken from their respective ex- girlfriends. The first story drew me in by the quirkiness of Teshi Kaneshiro's character, He Zhiwu, Cop 223. The seamless charm that he carries with him through all his encounters was particularly engaging and was performed well by Kaneshiro. There was a certain curiosity that left me yearning for more with the woman in the blonde wig, played by Brigitte Lin. Yet, the end of the segment was somewhat unfulfilling, lacking closure and a genuine resolution to the story. However, I still feel as though the first story was more engaging and interesting to watch narratively. Whilst there was far more screen time for the character development of our main protagonist in the second story, it still seemed like we knew Cop 223 from the first, more intimately. This is thanks to the script, containing wonderfully poetic descriptions of his experience with love and heartbreak. When he has eats a month's worth of canned-pineapple that expires on May 1, (in reference to his ex-girlfriend, May) the description that he will either reunite with his love or that it will have 'expired' forever is filled with rich imagery that captured the characters thoughts, flawlessly. The second story had weaker depth of characters due to the confusing plot line and generally less engaging characters. Faye (played by Faye Wong) added some quirkiness to the cast with her strange affection and obsession for Cop 663 (Tony Leung Chiu Wai). The greatest aspect of the second story was its impressive soundtrack. For the whole film, the inventive cinematography using limited funds and unique techniques on a hand-held camera were its greatest strengths and what the film is deservedly recognised for.

I have never seen a more perfect movie in my life. The entire piece is so perfectly stylized, shaped and carried out that it's seamless. One word: perfection. Every piece of the movie, every image, every second is carefully planned and each turns out to be an important piece of a greater puzzle. There isn't a great "AHA!" moment, nevertheless, at the end of the movie you feel completely overwhelmed by it's meticulous planning. It makes you wonder how brilliant and devoted a filmmaker must be to create something on this par. Advice: take note when Jack Nicholson comments on the flaw in Faye Dunaway's eye, it's no plot spoiler by any means to say so, but the line was certainly written for a reason...

I saw Awakenings for the third time last night (since 1990). I dropped what I was doing when I saw it was coming on TCM because I've long thought it to be one of the very best films I've ever seen. Now I'm positive it is my favorite...here's why: 1. It's about being alive: caring and looking for life in other people even when they seem asleep. Also it's about the fragility of life both physically and mentally/emotionally. This story, aside from being the true story of the discovery that L-dopa could release people from their apparent demented state, is a marvelous metaphor or allegory for all of us in some ways sleeping through parts of our life. The story may not have been intended as a modern morality tale, but it is even more germaine today than when it took place as science is prolonging life indefinitely. (I've spent a lot of time with critically ill and chronically ill people). More simply, to me it's a beautiful, bittersweet, yet life-affirming movie.2. The casting is perfect! And the performances are out of this world: my favorites by DeNiro and Williams, both of whose bodies of work I greatly admire. Every character is a home run.3. I'm no expert, but the combination of the directing, acting, editing and musical score and the visuals seem perfect to me. (As a musician I particularly appreciate the music).There you have it...I can't understand the lack of acclaim for this movie and Penny Marshall the director. I was surprised that the average rating was below 8 on a site for movie buffs...they must know something I don't about movies... I could understand a "9" because the movie lacks a grand ending as far as entertainment goes, but it fits the honesty and grace of the film. SEE THIS FILM.

Some people may consider that The Royal Tenenbaums was Wes Anderson's best, but Rushmore was what really started Anderson to write dark, ironic comedies. Also, unlike some writers, Anderson made his perfect movie on only his second time out. The sheer brilliance and funniness of Rushmore is forgotten by many because of its quirkiness and dark attitude. I would recomend it for anyone who enjoyed the Royal Tenenbaums or who is looking for movie that not just makes you laugh, but also makes you think.

The Coen brothers delivers again, this time with a classic western story and it is fun, engaging and entertaining. The best part is the marvelous performances by the great actors, especially veteran Bridges and newcomer Steinfeld. And Matt Damon as the somewhat fragile Texas Ranger is a good counterpart to the strong leads. Josh Brolin doesn't have a big role even though he is up there with the others on the posters, but what he does is solid. True Grit is a movie filled with great dialogue and effective humor. The cinematic experience lives up to the expectations as you are drawn into a totally believable world. My only complaint is that this world, and the characters portrayed here sometimes is a little bit too stereotypical, but that is also part of the fun. Great movie!

I watched this movie two weeks ago, me and my friends really felt like going to the movie. We saw the commercial on TV and decided to go to Watchmen. Now you should know that our ages range from 18 to 15. The comics were from far before our time, and we never heard of it either. So if you like us, have never read the comics and look through here to find out if this film is something for you, then let me warn you. I really disliked the movie, it might be because i hate movies based on drama, because that's what Watchmen is. As an 18 year old boy who watched the cool commercial, i expected heroes, nice fighting and great effects. Don't misunderstand me, there were heroes, there were great fights and i've never seen such great effects. I just really really hated the story line, it was confusing, and i felt like nothing really happened during the first one and a half hour. I'll have to tell you, that as you may think, i'm not one of those youngsters that watches Silvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steven Seagall beat up guys all day. I really like movies which turn my expectations around, even confusing me. But this movie was just boring. I walked away from the cinema, something that i've never done before. My vote which is 4 out of 10, is based on the quality of the film, and how much i liked it. I would seriously give it a 1 out of 10 if not for the quality. The acting is great, the effects are great but the story, well it sucks.

i was very excited for this movie to come out. i saw it in imax three d. and i was actually very disappointed with how they showed everything. i read the book. the battle in the department of mysteries? half of everything was gone. and i understand that it would be hard to show everything but they could of added a lot more than what they showed. i wanted to see the brain room. they didn't even add the swamp when i Weasley twins exited. and no quidditch? that was a huge part to me. Weasley is our king, harry and the Wesley twins being banned and when the Weasley's exited i wanted to see everything going on. it was okay for me. but i think it jumped around to fast.

A 007 makeover. A bunch of greatness in this movie but some not so good. It was 6 years between Bond movies, the longest break ever, and by far. Gone is Timothy Dalton who brought a real and flawed and emotional James Bond to the screen, a darker Bond. In is Roger Moore style action in the form of one Mr. Steele, Remington Steele... errr, I mean Pierce Brosnan. The stunts are great, most of them, but comic, too, such as freefalling to the side of a nosediving airplane. Give me a break! But we do have a return to action and that's a wonderful thing for the thrill seeking Bond viewer. Unfortunately, we have lame music and a lame opening Gun Barrel sequence. The main song, written by Bono and The Edge, is great, but where's the Bond Theme throughout the film? Yes, music can help make a movie and here it helps break it. Ugh. Terrible! But overall I am impressed. Brosnan is going to take some time to get used to. He's the third Bond in four films but he might do. We shall see! Oh, and interestingly to me, this is the first James Bond film (chronologically) that I never previously saw. For the life of me, I cannot remember seeing any of it ever so this was the first time. I know I've seen clips and I have seen other Brosnan 007 movies, but never this one. In any case, it's not amazing but still great and so very welcomed. Will definitely watch again one day!7.5 / 10 stars--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener

I am aware that I am a heterosexual male humanoid, and I am also aware that one of the "male rules of cinematic disengagement" is not to enjoy the male stripper themed movie "Magic Mike". Well, there are portions of "Magic Mike" that I could bear but there were parts I could not bear. Director Steven Soderbergh's film stars Channing Tatum as the titled Orlando male stripper. Mike sees stripping as a stripping I mean stepping stone to his goal of being a furniture entrepreneur. Mike befriends Young Adam (Alex Pettyfer) at his construction working gig and eventually invites Adam to take a bite out of the world of male stripping. Adam then makes the move from construction to stripping, so yea, he goes from hammering to hammering; I hope I nailed that pun for you. The male strip club's owner is the showman Dallas, who is portrayed by the comeback acting kid (well, maybe he is not a kid anymore) of 2012, Matthew McConaughey. Now in the stripper limelight, Adam disrobes himself to the world of hard partying, heavy drugs, and sexual "triventures". Mike takes a liking to Adam's sister Brooke (Cody Horn), even though she disapproves the wild lifestyle that her brother and Mike engage in. There are a few more developments that are stringed out in "Magic Mike"; but in reality, none that were magnetic enough to be captivating. I know that Soderbergh is a talented filmmaker, but somehow I think he simplified "Magic Mike" to be just a regular film about characters trying to reach financial success with no complex ingredients added to the mix; which is not really in his directorial nature. There was nothing in Reid Caroline's screenplay for me to think it was a "Sweet Caroline" script. However, what I feel salvaged "Magic Mike" was the charismatic performances from Channing Tatum as Mike and Matthew McConaughey as Dallas. But unfortunately I cannot say the same for the rest of the cast which included Pettyfer, Horne, and others that did not unveil their characters as much as I wanted them to; and please do not take that in another context. Again, I am a proud of my heterosexuality. "Magic Mike" does have its moments, but I think the naked truth is that is just a semi-plausible film. *** Average

Quantum of Solace was a pretty average movie. I didn't hate it but I didn't really like it either. I honestly didn't like Casino Royale either. Skyfall is the best Daniel Craig Bond film (yeah, the plot doesn't make sense but it has some terrific action). It's not that I hate Daniel Craig. But he's not the closest to the 007 of Ian Fleming's books like everyone says he is. It's not because he has blonde hair or anything like that. It's that he tries too hard to be a cold and uncaring secret agent who's absolutely indifferent to killing.But we're talking about Quantum of Solace here. The plot was okay but not very compelling. I did like Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes more than Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, though I'll admit I didn't like Eva Green at all and she's one of my least favorite Bond girls. The action just felt a bit, um, not very well-executed. And why'd they try to imitate one of the most famous scenes in the series (the death of Tilly Masterson)?So yeah, Quantum of Solace was not terrible but not very good or very fun either. Skyfall is definitely the best Daniel Craig Bond movie so far.

Hello IMDb, after having seen "I am legend" just a few minutes ago, I feel an irresistible urge to comment on the movie.First, let me state that the movie got everything a Will Smith movie needs: The usual call for humanity and the American hero bs we're all so used to and we all (well not all but obviously some) love so much. My buddy said "well I preferred resident evil" and at that exact moment I should have known, okay, here we go again, don't watch it. Well I did.This is not by far the crappiest movie I've ever seen, but I'd like to tell you why I am so angry about it right now and why I have given it that rating - the reason is, I loved the book so much. Read the book, go, read the book, and then correct your vote on this movie.The problem with this film is that it's actually pretty well done. As others pointed out, Will Smith (while making me so mad he said yes to play this role) delivers a solid performance, and rescues this movie from my 1/10 vote.---- Spoiler -- do not read on if you care to read the book without knowing the end -- BUT How dare the filmmakers leave out the entire story? The book presented the vampires as an increasingly intelligent species that form their own society. And as the protagonist is the only human left on earth, myths and rumors start around him, the vampires are afraid of him - and kill him; he is the monster, the unlike. The legend.The legend of this is film is that he saves humanity, that he restores the human race and heroically gives up his life in the end, fighting stupid, numb, aggressive beasts. Whereas the whole book was about the vanity of his quest, and the exchangability of the definition of "normal".I'm ... I don't know what to say. If you want to see a classic post-apocalyptic movie with some creative ideas and therefore lacking the nowadays must-have action sequences, watch silent earth.

The film is an obvious attempt to parody the summer camp movie genre which was painfully popular over twenty years ago. It's a bunch of loose-fitting comedic sketches. It probably was really funny on paper, but lost a lot in the production. The pace of the show seems similar to Love American Style, Fantasy Island or Love Boat, and not in a good way (if that's even possible). The film Meatballs did far better satire to this genre back in 1979, and since Meatballs was a screwball comedy satire of summer camps, this movie is a satire of a satire which is a bit over the top. Wet Hot American Summer didn't even need to be written, much less committed to celluloid. Janeane Garofalo is no Ruth Buzzi, but she's not Garofalo at her best here, either. I can't believe a woman of her comedic talent can't get a better script than this. Just once I'd like to see a director who doesn't fear her tattoos. Her agent should keep her away from any script that would require her hair to get moosed; no matter how funny she thinks it's going to be. The film is supposed to be bad though. It's making fun of trite plot devices, corny coincidences, flat characterization based on stereotypes and a convolution of too many things happening in a film at the same time and nothing ever actually going anywhere but somehow vaguely attempting to make sense at the end. Oh. And late 70s music. So if that's all they were trying to do, they succeeded. However, where I think one was supposed to be laughing, I just found myself wincing at the screen. This film is a bitter disappointment.

So I finally get around to watching Carrie redux. and I have to say. Not impressed. Granted I have had bowel problems that had a more satisfying finish and better tension. This review will be sarcastic and have some spoilers.I liked the beginning. Good actors, the right look for a modern odd girl out. Heck I went to school with some girls that looked just like her and had the same fundamental/mental upbringing. they were good people with odd parents. But this movie.. what the hell? What year is it placed in? it looks like 1988, 1997, 2004 and 2014 had a baby? Where are the public schools with Olympic sized pools? You mean there are still schools out there where teachers can slap, touch and say profanity to students without loosing their jobs? you can ban people from prom and its a thing? So mid way through the film the movie starts to tank. bad. The video of her freaking out over her period,(again what school still makes high schoolers shower in a big open room?) posted to a fake Facebook account( cause cyberbully) but Carrie has no computer. she can barely type. So this is not even a thing to her. so the mean girl and her thug boyfriend get set to ruin her night...because? The blood drop that gets it all started sets us up for a bad cgi fun time. Carrie becomes a blood soaked super villein killing without warring and becoming a high school version of the Phoenix from x men. Then we get to see people crushed, burned, electrocuted, and trampled to death, we get to see automotive safety glass work like plate glass and that in an emergency no one calls the cops until the whole school is on fire. It starts good then leaves you feeling put off and disgusted. I can get the same feeling with 10$ at taco bell, and with taco bell I don't get: noticeable(bad)CGI, Julianne Moore in her most forgettable and unnoticeable roll ever, A timeline that can't be placed,(this movie shakes its way through more decades then Michel J Fox) A slaughter scene that makes Carrie a villain equal to any school shooter.(she just kills anyone she can lay eyes on, how is she an anti hero? the main girl who harassed her was not even in the first group she killed.)I like violent movies.I don't like seeing a kid killing people because she is different. So when the time to watch Carrie 2013 comes up. just say nope and watch something good.

I just saw this on release in a local cinema. I'm not a huge heist film fan and high-octane thrillers aren't really my thing but I liked this movie a lot. The best thing, of course, was the plot. Really intricate unlike the negotiator. Clive Owen and Denzel Washington have both come in "one" of if not the best film of their respective careers to-date and both are quite good. This is an intelligent thriller and moves along very well just based on an excellent script. The heist is amazingly well planned.This is not a typical Spike Lee joint but he proves he's a good director with the pacing. See the pandemonium when the news of the heist first breaks (near the beginning of the movie). The camera goes crazy but when we get to the bank, its totally calm. Different mood tones are created. It was also nice to see an old legend like Christopher Plummer in a decent role. My only complaint would be that the Jodie Foster character was not fully developed. Well, there isn't much in depth characterisation or background info for anyone because the plot is more important and fast-paced.

Very, very gruesome indeed. But almost constant tits throughout the ENTIRE movie. Defitnitley not for the faint of heart. Like other Tarrantino films (namely Reservoir Dogs), it takes sort of random directions of it's own, but done in a way that you don't leave the movie dissatisfied. These were all reactions during the movie: cheering and whistling, applause, cheering whistling AND applause, disgust, laughter, dead seriousness/anticipation. At the end of the movie, you don't really feel like you just saw a horror film of a type not often seen these days.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!Spoiler!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!For example, when Pax has to cut Kana's (probably misspelled) eye off. You don't expect yellowish... stuff to leak fluidly out of it. Also the way when Pax runs over the 2 girls and the lip-guy, you don't expect him to run the surviving girl over again. The camera work is done beautifully that way. The only real disappointment i had in the entire movie was when Pax holds the Good Doctor's head in the toilet, cuts his throat, and throws his head back into the toilet, he never flushes it.

This show is great! It blends two of my favorite genres Science Fiction and Westerns in a unique way unlike that trainwreck Cowboys vs. Aliens. The show is great like IMDb used to be...when they still had message boards. This show would be a great show to talk about with other theorists but those days are done. Welcome to 2017 where everything sucks. F U A M A Z O N.

I can't understand the high rating this show is receiving. That was one large pile of alien excrement. It stunk and was a chore to watch. With how much anticipation this show generated, I was honestly shocked that FOX would release such a poorly written, stupidly rushed, and embarrassingly bad acted show. There was very very little going for this show - probably about a 2 or 3 rating. But because of the material and financial support this show has, I held it to an even higher standard. Thus, a single, lonely star for a a singularly poor episode. I predict that this show rating will slowly but continuously decline as more people watch without blinders. It was historically bad. I will say that I understand the challenge the show had - how to pay honor to the past while setting the stage for the future. That is the one thing this show did semi-well, at least in that they did set the stage for whatever mystery/drama/setting they will explore this season. But I promise, I have zero interest in seeing where it will go and will not waste another hour watching.

There will be Spoilers.It certainly clicks the right buttons: a world dominated by gangster capitalism and exploitation shown in the image of one man? Check. A world where the most holy men are little more than charlatans and frauds? Check. A world where family is a little more than a token for genuineness, to be disposed of whenever it becomes useless or a hindrance (usually for economic reasons)? Check. A world where one must be a psychopath to make it 'to the top'? Check. And the funny thing is, was how goddamn predictable all that was. These hoary old clichés seem to come around in cycles – this film is after all based loosely on a novel by Lewis Sinclair, perhaps every time there is an unpopular and blatantly corrupt Republican in the white house? That is not to say the film is bad - far from it actually and yes, Daniel Day Lewis is not as good as you have heard he is. He is far better than that, in a multifaceted role which demands both bluster and subtlety. But the really impressive thing from my Point of View was the dialogue – not so much the words spoken but how they were spoken. Every conversation was delivered with awkwardness, or with stuttering silence, or was clearly performed within the movie like Plainview's "I'm an oil man" speech at the beginning. Talk ebbs and flows penetrated by the occasional silence with none of the characters except Eli or Plainview at their most hysteric or determined, speaking with great conviction or believe. There is though very little dialogue in the film as a whole.This gives off a strong sense of realism there as opposed to "Movie acting". Imagine the scene where at the end where Eli and Plainview confront each other, lesser actors with lesser scripts would have either gone the typical indie route by exaggerating each characters mannerisms to show emotions and/or individuality or would have gone the Hollywood way and minimized subtlety in favor of the obviously dramatic. Here is there none of that, Eli's character, facial expression and yes, way of speech during his "confession" do not feel like performances at all but looking into – what? His soul, maybe? But that does sound pretentious. – That is not to say that this in itself is much new but the quality at which achieves it puts it above most recent releases. Add to that your cinematography and your long dialogue less scenes which have an almost Leone-like quality in showing so much by silence you have something of a classic of realism. Pure visual cinema.Recently in his review Mark Kermode, the critic for BBC, said that the film was like watching a new grammar of cinema being made in front of him. I wouldn't go that far, it is more an evolution of what already exists done by the best around (Surely if the Oscars were a serious event, P.T Anderson would have won best director). It is just a pity the storyline is nothing new under the sun. Its psychology being limited, dated and incomplete going into "dollar book Freud" territory. Its politics are similar as already mentioned. In the end it is a film to enjoy for 2 and a half hours and admire; but it just can't inspire passion in you. Perhaps that is where too, the comparison to Kane come in.

...that writes reviews for his films on IMDb.com?? Boring script, not clever, not funny, big name cast who slept-walked through their scenes, cliché-ridden, blah blah blah. Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, Ed Norton...really?I will never see another Wes Anderson movie. Never. And the 8+ rating here? Are you people absolutely crazy? I have lost so much for the ratings on this site that I now consider them meaningless.This was really humorless dreck...with two twelve year old unsmiling quirky kids given the task of carrying the movie. Nope.But, for the pedophiles in the crowd, there is the twelve year old girl in her underwear getting felt up by the boy. Yuck...goodbye Wes, and good riddance.

John Carpenter's version of "The Thing" is one of the scariest science fiction films dealing with space aliens that I have ever seen. The story itself is creepy enough but Carpenter's vision created a memorable horror film out of the story.The first thing that one notices is the element of icy isolation. The group of scientists are in the cold desolation of the Antarctic and loose contact with the civilized world. - That in itself is enough to scare the daylights out of most people.The second thing is the thing. An alien life-form that cannot be seen, is not ghost-like, yet it's presence is well known.The third thing is the suspense and mystery. A mystery of how the creature lives and survives. And the suspense of who is human and who is The Thing! This is a long time film favorite of mine and I do recommend it for those that love aliens stories mixed with horror.On a personal note: I when I look at spiders I sometimes think of this film - the character of Vance Norris (Charles Hallahan).10/10

Out of all of the movies I've seen in the past year, this rated up there with the best of them. In this one, the guys get back to focusing on pulling the heist rather than on also chasing the women. The result is that it seems all of the characters were given a bit more of the spotlight, which I think added greater depth to the story. Unlike 12, Thirteen spent must of its time in one or 2 locations, and the consistency of the setting I think added to the cohesion of the script. It was also fun to see how they worked in many of the minor characters from the two previous movies. I was entertained from start to finish, and nowadays that is what I consider to be mark of a very good movie.