Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

This is a very different Mexican film. One in which you can really appreciate the sure hand of director Alfonso Cuaron working at the top of his form with an excellent group of actors, which proves that when someone of this magnitude decides to make a good film about interesting characters in contemporary Mexico, one can expect a fine finished product.Alfonso and Carlos Cuaron have created people and situations that are very believable. The script is fine. "Y tu mama tambien" is about awakening and about reaching maturity. It's a great Mexican Road movie done with a lot of care.The Cuarons shows us a slice of life that could happen, not only in that country, but one that is universal. Producers and directors in Mexico should see this film and learn how to do future movies, even though the popular taste runs into the horrible soap operas, popular in Mexican TV. The Cuarons have turned out a magnificent script and have turned away from those popular melodramas that are a staple of the film industry of our neighbor to the South.Gael Garcia Bernal, who was excellent in Amores Perros, here demonstrates once again what an actor can do, given the right scenario and obviously a lot of freedom to give life to Julio. Diego Luna is also very credible in his portrayal of the son of a rich man on the road to discover himself. Obviously, the underlying theme is that both like each other, but it never comes out, as they both are so closeted and think themselves of being straight in such a macho atmosphere.Maribel Verdu plays the pivotal role of Luisa. She sees right through the boys, but has to play the part since they are the salvation from her miserable marriage. Here as in other Spanish films, she lets us know she is an actress who likes to take chances. This was the right vehicle for her and she takes advantage of a role that makes her outshine the rest of the cast.One can only hope more interesting things coming from this director and Mexico's gain is our loss, as it's obvious Mr. Cuaron's incursion into American films have not been as satisfactory as his work here.

This is my first review on IMDb. This movie was so horrible I felt forced to warn people about it.I had to go to the dictionary for this one - words to describe this movie: - very unpleasant - detestable - dreadful - appalling - vile - revolting - sickening (you get the point)*Spoiler* When the dancing daredevils came jumping from the train - the movie definitely derailed for me.The movie was awful, the story was awful. Words cannot explain how horribly awful the movie was.*Spoiler* You can only be brave or wise or smart or a gardener. If you are brave and wise, or brave and smart, or wise and smart - you will be killed. How stupid can this premise be? You cannot be both smart and brave, smart and wise?This is the worst movie I have seen since "The Postman". Yes - it is almost that bad.

It is really amazing movie i have ever seen in my lifetime. The cast and the story of the movie are really successful. Andy is a passionate character, and he is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover despite his claims of innocence. It is so touching to spend almost two decades in the prison. Old-fashioned prisons in the 90s are full of bad guy who don't expect anything from the life. And , they don't think how we escape here. However; Andy with his close friend in the prison , Red , tries redemption from this prison, by the time , Andy tries to do beneficial things for people in the prison not to attract attention. It is unbelievable that they escape from this prison. But , Andy approaches to place of exit. It is actually amazing , it is really incredible. They go to their dreams to live a peaceful and quiet life. Also; Andy prepares a trap for the chief of the jail. After the redemption , they become free anymore. It is really an amazing movie. Easily one of the best movies made during the 90s and definitely one of the top 'prison' movies of all-time. Pretty much everything about this movie works and works extremely well!

I often joke when I see a no-brainer action film that we "broke up into discussion groups" after the film.For NOCTURNAL ANIMALS, that is exactly what I needed.  I needed to find some others that saw this film and sit down and discuss it to unpack what I just saw.Directed by Fashion Designer Tom Ford, NOCTURNAL ANIMALS tells the story of successful art gallery owner, Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) who receives a manuscript of a novel by her ex-husband Tony Hastings (Jake Gillenhall).  This novel tells the story of a man who's wife and daughter are kidnapped and brutally murdered.  Susan can't help but notice that the wife in the story bears a striking resemblance to her.  Which drives Susan to dredge up the "bad circumstances" of their divorce.Told in two stories - one in the "real" world telling the story of Tony and Susan.  The other tells the story in the book - a brutal story of murder and revenge set in West Texas.  Both stories feed on the other one - themes of one blend into the theme of the other and vica- versa.  It is a gripping, tough look at a life that is left vacuous by a moment in time, can Susan move on...and...is this book Tony's way of moving on?It works very, very well.As I mentioned, this film is directed by Fashion Designer Tom Ford and it has a Fashion Designer's attention to meticulous detail all over it.  The pictures he displays are magnificent and fascinating to look at - sometimes grotesque - but fascinating nonetheless.  Ford helps drive the emotional arc of the story with scenarios and tableaux that help propel feelings forward, a tricky job that is handled well.As for the acting - it is superb.  Starting with Amy Adams as Susan.  She goes through this film as a a person who's exterior is gorgeous all the while hiding a soul that is empty.  Word is that Adams might get nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in ARRIVAL.  That is too bad, for her performance in this film is far, far superior, but the character is much harder to watch - which makes it more interesting to me.Stacking up to Adams is Gyllenhall's performance as Tony - and as Edward, the husband in the story.  Gyllenhall's work is consistently top-notch and he doesn't disappoint here.  Also adding heft to this story is Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the killer in the story-within-the- story and the always great Michael Shannon as the West Texas Sheriff chasing Taylor.This movie is not for everyone - it is hard to watch and the characters are not exactly people you want to hang around with (for the most part) - but it is an intriguing character study that will get you thinking in the end.8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)

So much cinematic output of late consists of "action/disaster" movies aimed at cheap thrills by the second. And the more explosions, murders, special effects, fights or macho posing takes place, the better the audience seems to like it. The film, 'A Beautiful Mind' could not be more removed from the glut of superficial puerile trash that predominates our screens nowadays.Russell Crowe, who has exhibited more than his fair share of violent and aggressive behaviour on set, (and sometimes off set too) has made an exceptional movie, with ABM. Here he totally relinquishes his aggressive, stereotyped image, in favour of a mild, eccentric and awkward academic, totally absorbed in his field of mathematics. So convincingly does Crowe blend into the character of John Nash, that it's almost impossible to believe that it's him playing this role. He even looks different, having lost a bit of weight for the part, although the bulging biceps are ever present. His acting is just brilliant, and Crowe proves once and for all that he is leagues above most Hollywood actors, and need never be typecast for violent roles again, because he can be versatile in character.Without going fully into the plot, the film basically is a two part study of schizophrenia, particularly from a victim's point of view. The first half of the film cleverly thrusts the audience right into the mind of John Nash, and the delusions he suffers. We share these delusions with him, and therefore they seem real enough in his mind (and ours) but baffling to everyone else around him. However, we are not really aware that Nash is actually a schizophrenic, until the film's second half. Up to then it's quite possible that Nash's growing alienation and secrecy about his work may have some genuine basis. There are at least three characters that the viewer is led to believe exist. One of them emerges near the start of the film, and unless you are extremely observant you would not realise he was fictitious, until all is revealed. We also notice Nash's lack of social skills, particularly with women, but despite this handicap he eventually manages to attract the attention of one his female students, destined to be his future wife Alicia, sympathetically played by Jennifer Connelly. The second half of the film deals with Nash's awareness of his condition, and his attempts to deal with it, and the strain it places on his marriage.Crowe was more than ably supported by the rest of the cast. Jennifer Connelly received an Oscar, as did director Ron Howard. And the film received 'Best Picture' Oscar. But as for Russell Crowe? He was nominated but got nothing. It seems he was deliberately snubbed in 2002, since he received an Oscar the previous year in 'Gladiator'. That's life, I guess!Films like ABM are far and few between. Maybe it's just as well since its welcoming quality reminds us how good films can still be, and that there are directors prepared to take a risk by not following the herd.

I'm going to try my best to list no spoilers, promise... This is by far my absolute favorite Comic Book movie in my library. The simple fact that it was filmed with no CGI (according to the bonus features of the DVD), and the way Thomas Jane portrayed the character, this movie SHOULD have been a Blockbuster hit, maybe, JUST MAYBE! Had this movie been released around this time when you see nothing but Superhero or Comic Book movies, it would be a better fit in terms of timing.Thomas Jane as The Punisher/Frank Castle, perfect! His wife and son actors... well not so much. The father, no not really... John Travolta as the bad guy, I haven't seen a Travolta bad buy since Face/Off and this movie just proves that he can play the character you simply hate and want to die in the movie.I have no idea what all the negative buzz was around this movie, I'm more disappointed after watching the Red Band trailer of WarZone (which I will be boycotting BTW) than I ever will be of this movie.This movie is a genius action flick.

Easily the best sci-fi film since Serenity (2005).Borrowing heavily from Moon (2009), Oblivion (2013) does not disappoint. The plot is predictable but at least the science behind it is plausible unlike many other sci-fi movies. Action scenes are very well-executed and the sound effects are top notch. Anyone that doesn't like this movie likely shouldn't be watching sci-fi as the back-story and science is elementary for anyone with a scientific background.Tom Cruise is one of my favourite actors and is very convincing in his role as part of a "clean-up" team on earth. I wish he would do more sci-fi as he's great in these kind of roles. Andrea Riseborough is also very good as the other member of the team. Olga Kurylenko was an unnecessary addition and the film goes downhill somewhat when her character is introduced.The CGI and picture quality is stunning; some of the best seen so far. Sadly the film was mastered at 2K to save time & money which is a real shame.

**SPOILERS** First of all, I didn't hate this movie. I didn't love it either, though. Which is a shame, because I pretty much feel a good "Alien" sequel writes itself. Admittedly, the creators were written into a corner when Ripley killed herself in part 3. But I felt the device used to bring her back here was clever...she's a clone, duplicated in an effort to pull the gestating queen out of her. At first Sigourney Weaver plays this with just the right amount of innocence and curiosity you would expect from a new born. But about half way through she becomes just another wisecracker, like the space crooks surrounding her. I also didn't understand how I was supposed to get all ga-ga with fear over the fact that there were 12 aliens in the movie...remember, there were HUNDREDS in "Aliens". I wasn't bored but I wasn't engaged watching this the way I was with the other three. And the comedy seemed forced.

This is one of Billy Wilder's most entertaining and easily watchable films. His direction is unintrusive but carefully guided, and again he drags forth masterful performances from his actors. Charles Laughton is brilliant, and if it hadn't been for The Bridge on the River Kwai, he and Wilder would have won Oscars for their work.

I am writing this review after having watched "Madagascar" for the third time. for the sake of the movie, this is a good thing since I really did not like it when I first viewed it, which was in the theaters. I am a big 'toon fan and like many other "toonheads" and movie reviewers, I felt that "Shrek" and "Ice Age" set the standard for adult cartoons that are as entertaining as they are side-splitting funny. It is no coincidence that these type of cartoons are intentionally designed to get more laughs from adults than kids.Even though there are countless references to other cartoons, I feel that this deserves to be seen without looking through the prisms of other works. It really does not matter how Madagascar stacks up to Shrek anymore than trying to compare Brokeback Mountain to Cinderella Man. View it as if it were the only adult cartoon ever made.I initially went into "Madagascar" thinking that I would be seeing another "Shrek," since that is how it was promoted and that is primarily the reason why I left the theater feeling cheated. They say that some movies need to be seen more than once to be appreciated, and after watching this two more time on video, I can say, unequivocally, that this one gets better with each sitting.At first, I did not like the voice characterizations for a few reasons. First of all, I do not like Ben Stiller at all, who does the voice of "Alex, the Lion". Secondly, I thought that giving the role of "Marty, the Zebra," to Chris Rock, was being blatantly derivative of "Donkey" in Shrek both from a character standpoint, and because, like Eddie Murphy, Rock was another black alumnus from "Saturday Night Live". Now, don't get me wrong: I think that Chris Rock is a great comic actor, although nowhere close to a seasoned Eddie Murphy, but he has one of the most grating voices in showbiz since Louie Anderson.One the other hand, the choice of Jada Pinkett Smith to play Gloria, the "Hip-Hop", Hippo, and David Schwimmer to play Melman, the Narcoleptic Giraffe were casting gems.All of the criticisms that I initially had about Madagascar faded away during the second. Upon final review, Madagascar is one, really funny cartoon that I recommend be seen more than once.Madagascar is actually two stories in one about two sets of four animal friends that reside in New York's Central Park Zoo. The main story centers around the longings of Marty to be back in the wild and wide-open spaces of Africa rather than couped up in a technologically-controlled synthetic jungle "environment." His best friend, Alex, is a ham at heart who loves to be the center of human attention at the daily zoo shows. Gloria is the stabilizing force between these two opposites and frequently acts as mediator between them. Melman seems perfectly happy just to have a life that has some constancy.As you have read in other reviews, the four wind up getting accidentally shipped (dumped) to Madagascar where they meet the wackiest bunch of lemurs you will ever see.The second group of animal friends in the movie are four commando-like penguins who are more intent on getting out of the Big Apple, and do so by breaking out of the zoo, commandeering a huge cargo ship, and hijacking it to Antartica! The penguins are a needed comic-relief to a few, overly serious moments in Madagascar.Like Shrek 2, there are plenty of inside jokes and send-ups of other films (such as Planet of the Apes, American Beauty, and From Here to Eternity). More funny, however, are the more subtle gags which I will not reveal here lest they lose their desired impact.What makes Madagascar work, in the final analysis, is that it stays true to its storyline, and never forgets the importance of friendship in all relationships.

This movie is charming and sweet and crude and sharp and oh so funny! "Hudson Hawk" harks back to the great slapstick comedies of the past while advancing the genre to modern cinema standards. This is another film that has been made fun of a lot by the media but everyone I ask who has seen it all really like it. It seems to me that some films that are particularly dense or strange just turn some people off. Heaven forbid that they might have to pay attention and have an open mind to enjoy the quirky humor and sometimes frantic pace of the story and jokes in this film. I laughed just as hard the second time I saw the film and part of the reason for that is that I just couldn't catch all the jokes the first time around and what I did not miss (the first time) was so dense that by the time I wanted to see it again I had forgotten many of the jokes and plot details. Great movies, books, or music always surprise me when I see them again because they are always better than I remember. This movie surprised me when I saw it a second time and I bet the same will happen when I see it again. If you liked the fast-paced humor of "In and Out" or the slightly surreal slapstick of "Taxi" then this film will leave you in stitches. Filled to the brim with eccentric characters all perfectly cast and charm and goodness to spare this is a movie I will see many more times in my life (I have seen it twice so far) and I will probably laugh just as hard each time. (8/10)

1st watched 12/10/2000 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Wolfgang Peterson): Although there was a not very well done lead-in to the storm footage, the battling of the storm itself and the different stories fit together really well. Could have been better, but overall good telling of a true story without a happy ending.

This is a great sci-fi movie. It's about an assassin, called a looper, who is hired to kill people sent to the past from the future. If this seems confusing, it is, and that's intentional. The problem is: what happens when the victim sent back is the assassin? That means killing yourself, or, as it's put in the movie, "closing the loop." Nice euphemism, right? Anyway, this one particular assassin is set to kill his next victim when he notices that the victim is himself, just older. Well, needless to say, but say it I will, mayhem breaks lose, because in the world of the loopers, if you don't do your job, then you have to be eliminated. (Eliminated: that's another euphemism.) You may be wondering: why have loopers? The answer to that question is because this story is set in the not so far distant future, after some kind of major upheaval, leaving humanity wrecked and presenting a perfect opportunity for organized crime to flourish. In the future time travel is discovered, but it's illegal, which means, of course, that only criminals use it. But in the future, when the syndicate eliminates someone, they cannot dispose of the body, hence, they transport the victim to the past for processing. Okay, now that we got that muddled explanation out of the way, here's what happens in the movie: the looper is now searching for his older self because his older self wants to murder a child who, in the future, will be the head of the crime syndicate who gets the older looper-self's wife murdered. That's right: it's a vendetta. Now, the younger looper-self learns that the child, a boy, lives on a farm with a woman who is the sister of the boy's mother. Now, the boy's mother was killed after the boy unleashed telekinetic forces that smashed everything in its path. Oh, before I forget, I need to mention that after the cataclysmic events that messes up the world, about ten percent of the population comes down with a mutation that gives them telekinetic powers which nobody knows how to use. Okay, now back to the looper and the boy. The looper finds the boy and they form an emotional bond. Finally, to bring this synopsis to an end, the older-looper-self arrives at the farm, and is trying to kill the boy, who has just unleashed a humongous telekinetic blast, but instead kills the sister-mother, and so the looper kills himself. The reason why the looper kills himself is because he realizes that by sacrificing his life, he will save the life of the mother and that in turn will change the course of history because instead of the boy growing up bitter and unloved, and becoming the head of the criminal syndicate in the future, he will have a mother to care for him. Thus, the looper becomes a martyr and a hero. This movie is saturated with violence because the story is violent. Bruce Willis is fabulous as the older-looper-self. He carries this movie; it's probably his best role and performance in years. The story itself is intriguing and clever, and the movie does an excellent job of telling a story without an over-reliance on special effects, which are kept to a minimum.

Watching an American movie about ETs is like watching blue movies, all that changes is the sequence of positions on screen and on your chair. Steven Spielberg should scrap every movie since Schindler's List. Listen, it's all about the American paranoia that aliens will come to destroy the American way. If anyone ever wanted that they would have done it since independence day. And all that Steven Spielberg does is to lend his name to a bunch of interns. Monsters are ugly, a good story is turned into garbage, soundtrack makes me rock in the chair. No more aliens, no more Spielberg movies. By the way, who did this comment window? It must be one of those interns, it allows one actor to have more than one entry in the database but it tortures the user with petty stuff. The lines in the window do not match the lines in the final draft.

This is a well-directed movie and the last portion of the film is thrilling to watch.Unfortunately, the story itself and how it is shown is purely a blatant propaganda for the CIA and US military, disguised as an entertainment. It is very much one-sided and completely justifies the cruelty and motives of the US war on terror.The opening declaration that the movie is based on first-hand account of real events is also misleading and irresponsible.As a two-edged sword, the movie is also a political and religious ammunition of those extremists who preach the gospel of hate. Hollywood movies are far-reaching and can easily sway the ignorant masses, as such a director of Bigelow's stature will be judged on a higher standard.Of which, she failed miserably to live up to that standard.

I gave this movie a 10 out of 10 because I know it has great effects and art design, and is a step in indie sci-fi film making.Unfortunately, I forgot to bring my glasses to the movie theater, so I had to try and appreciate everything but the visuals, which was extremely difficult. The conflict I have with the film is it doesn't depict anyone who I'd want to be. At first you think you can relate to the characters until you realize they're all based off of the pretense that they're all horrible people. So many people wont relate and likely look away from this movie and regard it as a joke.The script very consciously tries to make a moral point throughout the film but seems to disregard all of the characters in the story except for the one doorman that blows himself up to save the country from aliens. The moral of the story is: "Do you want to be a hero? Be an inconspicuous doorman to a hotel, not one of those sex-crazed media industry fiends from LA".If I could get over my doubts, I'd say it's a good film. The ending is also mind***ing.

I watched this movie but wasn't really expecting to watch it at all. this movie wasn't such a good movie. Before i watched this movie i didn't have high expectations for this movie because many dance movies seem not to be great. So i was right, step up wasn't such a good movie, it was alright and enjoyable at times but wasn't really entertaining. That female main character can't act, it's so fake. The dancing in the movie was nice. The storyline isn't that good neither, it seemed rushed and really weird. There were a few parts of the movie that is confusing...and the setting of this movie is of a high school...its stupid, the actors CLEARLY look like they're in their 20's. They should have switched that and just make them college/university students. There was also some funny parts that I enjoyed like when Channing (Tyler) was goofing with his friends, and how he acted towards the female. I was a little surprised that there were some serious drama scenes that should not have been included (ex. Tyler's friend's little brother murder scene- really bad to show, made no sense) Overall, I think this movie is pretty decent for people that enjoy dance movies and are fans of Channing Tatum..so Id recommend it

I never write reviews but I felt compelled to with Chappie because I feel it's being severely underrated. I really don't understand what all the hate is about. It may not be perfect but it's a beautiful story that can make you laugh, cry, cringe, and, above all, fall in love with Chappie's character.It amazes me how much the critics have been bashing this film. It may not be the most original movie but I think it's actually one of the more original films of the recent decade. There's no theme that hasn't been done over a hundred times but the sentient AI theme behind Chappie is handled in a way I have never seen before. Chappie's childlike personality really captures your heart and it's fascinating to see how he reacts with being mixed up in a gang of thugs.I also thought the acting given by Die Antwoord was very decent, much better than I would have expected. Yolandi, especially, portrays a convincing and sweet mother figure to Chappie. The blatant self-advertisement on their shirts was the worst thing about the movie, to me, but this was nowhere near enough to ruin the film.All in all, I think Chappie is a very entertaining story and it has quickly become one of my favorites.

I would have given it 8.5 if I could have, but I decided to just round up. I saw an advance screening, and went in thinking that it wouldn't and couldn't possibly approach the level of magnitude that the musical bestowed. However, I was proved wrong. If looked at as a movie, simply, and without comparing it to the Broadway show, then it was outstanding film despite its flaws.Most of the original cast as drafted, with the exceptions of Rosario Dawson as exotic dancer/HIV+ Mimi (Daphne Ruben Vega, the original Mimi, was noticeable pregnant at the time of filming) and Tracie Thoms, Harvard-graduated lawyer and lesbian (Fredie Walker, the original Joanne, was deemed too old for the part). The original cast members are as follows: Adam Pascal as ex-junkie, HIV+, rocker Roger Davis; Anthony Rapp as Mark Cohen, Roger's roommate who is a struggling filmmaker and (mostly) the narrator of the story; Tony-award winner Idina Menzel as bisexual Maureen Johnson, a drama queen and activist; Law and Order's Jesse L. Martin as HIV+ MIT/NYU computer-age philosophy professor Tom Collin; Tony-award winner Wilson Jermaine Heredia as the AIDS-afflicted drag queen with whom Collins is in love, Angel; and Benjamin "Benny" Coffin III played by Taye Diggs. All have dabbled in film, and therefore know how to act around cameras. Voices have changed, matured, from either more training, as in Idina Menzel's case, or smoking as in Adam Pascal's case, but none have diminished. The raw emotion is present, the music has been altered slightly here and there but nothing major, and the ever-wandering camera shots are wonderful.Some complaints one could have would be that, on screen, the story is a bit too juvenile, a bit too melodramatic, and some of the thematic elements that are perfectly presentable on stage show their patched-up corners on screen. Additionally, some of the grit has been lost in order to make a PG-13 movie, though a typical PG-13 movie it is not. This is not the type of movie that one could bring preteens nor adolescents under the specified age unless their maturity is high enough to openly accept alternate lifestyles, drugs issues, and various references throughout the movie to things that could otherwise go over their heads.The choreography, however, and the emotion is there, and all makes for a pretty enjoyable time. If you like musicals, you will like Rent. If not, then honestly why on earth would you look into it?

I caught this movie late one night on FXM, and i didn't know what to expect, because i don't usually like Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp. There's just something about both of them that annoys me in their movies. But surprisingly in this film, i love both of them in their characters! This film had an intriguing plot to it, very mysterious. This movie had really good visuals, as far as costumes and sets, very elegant. I personally thought the dialouge was pretty intelligent. The ending was a big shocker, one of those that made you step back and question the entire movie. I'm not going to give away what is in store, you'll have to find that out on your own. This certainly isn't gonna win any Oscars or anything, but it does it's job as an entertaining thrilling mystery.

These two ladies are HOT - the whole experience was great. I've seen the Broadway stage play in NYC, the Ginger Rogers movie Roxie Hart and now Chicago - all three together are complimentary to each other. I hope that this marks the beginning of the revival of the Musical on the big screen. With the advancements in technology in recent years their potential is so much greater than ever before. Congrats to everyone involved in both the Stage and Theatrical productions.

So I decided to watch The Game Plan after hearing many good reviews about it when it came out. I forgot about this film and suddenly got it rented and shipped to me to watch. Now first of all I like the Rock and think that he will have a long career ahead of him. But I feel that this movie was somewhat a mistake for him. I wouldn't recommend this to any adult, unless they have a bunch of children and would watch it with them. There is nothing about this film that is original or clever. It has all the same clichés that all sorts of these truly dumb films have. It is really predictable and we see the Rock make a fool of himself in this film. The script is really stupid, the acting is atrocious, and all of the Rocks football teammates are completely unbelievable and pointless. I was not only embarrassed of how bad this was, but embarrassed for anyone involved in this garbage. The plot was really weird. Its about the Rock realizing that he has and 8 year daughter after she comes to his doorway one night. Then things take off from there, and the Rock's character Joe Kingman is a pro football player looking to win a title, while is daughter Peyton is a ballet dancer. Of course like all Disney movies there's the conflicts and problems, and a happy ending. There is no difference in this film. This goes to show that families are desperate to see something they can take their kids to, even though the parents are at a loss for words as to why this is funny to them. I wouldn't recommend this to adults, its more of a kids film.

Watching the film "Come and See" is a real powerful film that what expressed to me of what people in reality suffered during that time and they went through. What emotionally affected me was to see the fact of how back in the day people got killed. It was hard for to see that because people were judgmental for belonging to a certain class or race. While watching the film it reminded me of how unfortunately similar situations happen in today's society and the results are deaths of innocents. The wars and violence that exist in countries only causes more deaths and hatred especially for the innocents of children. What the film really told to me was about the innocence of the people is that the thought that of how there is no humanity or empathy of people.

I took my kids to see Brave and wished I had gone myself. As I was not the only parent covering eyes and ears and leaving the theatre. I would not recommend this film to children under six. There was some parts that were very violent, very scary, and it was the first nudity in a Disney film that I myself have ever seen. I enjoyed this film, my little ones did not. I think Disney cut themselves short on this one as the story line was lacking. This film might have been better done as a real life version rather than cartoon? I guess I was expecting more. As a story idea I do think hers was great but needed more plot dimensions. More conflict. More unexpected twists. Maybe a reluctant prince too?

This movie doesn't deserve a place in top250..!! i don't get it....if so many people like such a movie then where is the humanity leading to??i have seen more than 1500 movies in IMDb & almost all the top 250..! But a movie like this??!.. No way, i hated it! i hate it in spite of an brilliant yet awful twist...i guess the director is an incest lover :DFor god's sake...some maniacs may get encouraged through this movie..According to me a movie no matter how well taken is not a good movie as if it preaches a bad idea!one line verdict: Utter nonsense without a common sense

Let me start off first by saying that the special effects were pretty good. Maybe even the best ever. And if you like Roland Emmerich movies your going to like this. Now that the only positive thing I have to say is out of the way, let's move on to why this movie is a total disgrace to the art of film. This is an Emmerich movie. If your familiar with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (hated it), 10,000BC (didn't like it), and INDEPENDENCE DAY (actually liked this one), then you know how this goes. Somehow this ends up in the hands of the high government; Roland makes the govt. look like bad guys;and the world blows up, goes underwater, or gets taken down by aliens. I have no idea why this movie tries to be funny. Cusack is running from the giant earthquake tearing up the road behind him,and ends up behind 2 ninety-year-olds going 20MPH. Why? Why would you randomly cut to disaster scenes after emotional final goodbyes?(Sistine Chapel). Why are there cameras everywhere? On the (big Spoiler) arcs how do they find the perfect closeup of John Cusack? It doesn't make sense why they put this in the film. Oh yeah cheesy lines.Lots!!! (It's Russian!!)But my biggest problem is the characters. There are simply to many. (SPOILER) At one point in the movie, one minor character calls his father who is doing a show on a cruise ship to say goodbye. His partner who he is doing the show with calls Japan to his estranged son in Japan. His daughter picks up the phone and finally meets her grandpa before the phone line dies. That is a minor character who calls an even less important person. That person's partner calls an even less important person, etc. It's just to much.The effects can only carry this movie so far. Yet another fail to Roland E. movie career. He'll be back in a couple of years to blow some more crap up. Until then, this disaster is what he left us.2** out of 10

When this movie starts out, you could be forgiven for thinking that you are seeing *All the President's Men* or some other classic newspaper movie. Very much unlike *The Big Short*, for example, another of this year's feature-length films recounting a recent true story, there are no really innovative new approaches to movie making here.But that is not to say that this movie holds no interest. Not at all. Unlike any of the classic newspaper movies I know, this one gets complicated when you start to suspect that there are people in the paper itself who are working against the journalists covering the big story.You also start to wonder what involvement the journalists in question themselves may have had with similar situations, since they are all Boston Catholics themselves. Lots of old-fashioned close-ups of their faces, faces that are expressing anguished thoughts not put into words, leave you wondering. This is not like covering the Watergate break-in, you come to realize. These reporters are in fact discovering things about themselves, their upbringing, their community, as they probe ever more leads into cases of child abuse by Boston Catholic priests.There is nothing innovative about the film making here, perhaps. But the script is written for intelligent adults, and demands your full attention, which it amply rewards.This is not an easy movie to watch, frankly, because you end up viewing the case through the anguish of the reporters. In that sense, it takes the ability to see all this as new and horrifying, despite all we have learned since.But it is very much a movie that is worth the effort, and the discomfort, to watch.

Magic MikeWhat's this? A movie about stripping! Now who wants to watch a bunch of fully clothed moms exercising on a pole?Oops, my mistake, this dramedy is about peelers with penises - so it does objectify someone.After fouling up his football career, Adam moves (Alex Pettyfer) in with his sister (Cody Horn).One day Adam meets Mike (Channing Tatum), who moonlights as an exotic male dancer.Welcomed by the revue's owner Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) and its male cast (Kevin Nash, Joe Manganiello, Adam Rodríguez), Adam eventually gets on stage.Mentored by Mike, Adam becomes a top singles earner.But bad business between him and some drug dealers threatens his banana hammock heyday.Traversing uncharted cinematic territory, Magic Mike does offer an entertaining look at male ecdysiasts; unfortunately, its directionless story isn't as beefy as its cast.Besides, everyone knows real men don't strip on stage - they perform burlesque. (Yellow Light)vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

A brilliant movie, as the original. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson is talented actors that plays they're characters perfect. We've got superb Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Richard Harris as Albus Dumdledor, Maggie Smith as Minerva, Kenneth Branagh as Gylderoy Lockhart, John Cleese as Nick, Jason Isaacs as Lucifus Malfoy...The mood is more darker and scary, so this is a more thrilling movie than the first. The story is more exciting and interesting and it's more history behind Hogwart. We also gets to know Hagrid, Draco Malfoy's father Lucifus, Minerva better. " Why are you wearing glasses? " " Uh...reading!" " Reading? I didn't know you could read " Draco Malfoy is cooler and more teasing in this than the first, I dare say that the whole movie has more story about characters and Hogwart. I'm fascinated by Rickman, Branagh and Coltrane. Three fantastic actors with different movies on they're mind. And I say that Emma Watson is pretty beautiful - a lovely actress with a talent that England must take care of. Role dice: 6

Since my video store, did not have much choice when it comes to Video Cassettes, I randomly selected John Malkovich, as the synopsis seemed interesting.However, it seems as if the movie was shot by some amateur video photographer. Bad camera work, and add to it, the absence of natural or sufficient light. I do not understand the director's obsession of dark or less lighting. Could not even see properly, the faces of all the characters.The idea is nice, but wish, director had made it a fantasy movie like Terminator or Matrix, with proper character development, rather than creating such absurd piece of junk

With Ant-Man Marvel toned the action down to an inch, literally. After phase one, and Avengers, MCU got filled with action rather than character development (Which is totally normal and cool). Guardians of the Galaxy broke that chain with a glorious manner. Ant-Man carried the huge torch on its small shoulders. Taking a C-Class hero named Ant- Man this movie could have easily been the point where Marvel messed up. But that was totally not the case. The movie had a fluent, funny way to tell a straight up heist story with a twist. It made me laugh, cry and sometimes left me in awe. The shrunk scenes had epic cinematography. The action felt fluent as it was kinda tense and had no shaky cam madness. I never felt lost at the fight and chase scenes. The plot had touchy moments that didn't feel out of place. Performances were amazing especially by Paul Rudd and Micheal Douglas. Scott is a sloppy, less rich, more caring Iron-Man. Paul Rudd did a great job of delivering the sometimes lost but still sassy Ant-Man. Villain was kinda weak but believable and enough to fill the part. In the end this is one of the best MCU movies also one of the best of its kind in its year.

I bought the books for my mom a few years back and never bothered to read them myself. Fairies and warlocks really aren't my thing.Scrolling through channels late one night, I saw the title and recognized it. With nothing else on, heck, why not? I missed the first minute or two, no big deal. It took a little to get into the movie, but I really liked it. With knowing nothing, the acting was okay. Reminded me a bit of Twilight. Watching the movie inspired me to dust off my mom's books and give them a shot.After reading the first book, which the movie is based off of, I was severely disappointed. Yes, I know, you can't fit every detail from the book into a movie. But oh man, I couldn't let the issues go. Valentine has white hair, make him have white hair! Isabell is suppose to have a red pendant, not a red stele. It is said in the book! And the prequel series lets you know why (I got really into the books and read The Infernal Devices, too). But my biggest issue is the ending. This is a series. When it's a series, that means there will be another one after.In the book, Valentine gets off with the cup. In the movie, Clary has the cup.VALENTINE IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE THE CUP!! It's the whole reason for the second book. Clary, Simon, and the Shadowhunters go after him for the cup!!Why has nobody else brought this up? It's kind of a big deal.

I'm a 290 pound, mean-looking dude, but I cried like a baby watching this movie.This is a masterpiece in American story telling.Every scene builds up the tension.Every dialog adds depth.Every central character makes sense.The ending makes you smile.Tim Robbins' and Morgan Freemans acting is simply outstanding. Throughout the movie, you feel you get to know their inner thoughts, their longings, their fears. FANTASTIC! MARVELOUS! INGENIOUS!

For starters, it was nice to see a comic book movie not have to reintroduce familiar characters to the general public. Beating a dead horse yields no results. The actor that played superman did a bang-up job and looked the most like Clark Kent than any other actor I've seen. Swell. I really didn't see the superman's son side-story and though it was refreshingly well inserted into the movie. The pacing was very nice and made what's a 2hr+ movie seem shorter. Kevin Spacey's ego was probably the only thing that overshadowed what was a kind of un-hollywoodlike Hollywood movie. It wasn't Spacey as Lex, it felt more like Lex as Spacey. Read up on your character there, Kiev. Can't wait for SR2.

ID4- the first in a series of ultra-modern Hollywood eye candy garbage films that actually lack scripts. This film was conceived as a series of explosions, spaceships, aliens, macho action sequences, and one-liners that are loosely connected by inane, brainless drivel to form a semblance of a connected whole. For the majority of filmgoers, it works, because audiences don't like to think- they like to stare mindlessly at the purty pictures while riding the dopamine high. The "but the special effects were excellent" crowd loved this one, as did the "I don't like to think during a movie... I like to be entertained" bunch. For anyone who does like to think, and respects SF as a genre capable of dealing with interesting and meaningful themes, avoid at all costs. For everyone else... it has GREAT special effects! Pant. Drool. 1 out of 10.

Till the last 20 minutes i thought to give this movie a 9, for me the end sucks, it confused me it't not him it's her, wait what, they didn't need to do that it could be simpler, but other the end, from every beginning it was great, such a detail on cars and environment and this 80's music also great, and fight scene for me was also great, you can actually feel the hit, there wasn't 100 punches and no blood or scar and stuff like that. To summit, I suggested you to watch it, you won't regret.

"Pitch Black" kicks right off with a pretty spectacular scene. In this scene a spaceship serving as a sort of inter-galactic subway train crash lands on a strange planet. Among the surviving passengers is a convicted mass murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel from "Saving Private Ryan"), being transported back to prison or somewhere nasty. There's the co-captain of the ship, Fry (Rahda Mitchell from "High Art"), who finds herself in charge. There are about ten others to begin with, but that number of course is reduced to about four by the end.The planet is very desert-like (what world of your typical sci-fi movie isn't?) Luckily (by golly, what a coincidence!) they land near a settlement now seemingly abandoned. There's also a canyon nearby filled with the bones of alien creatures. The group sets out in search of water, concerned by the presence of Riddick. But then something else starts killing people. They discover that the planet's only remaining life forms are these nasty, hammerhead shark-looking things that fly. The planet has three suns and for some reason, these creatures can't live in sunlight. Day lasts 22 years. At night, they hunt. Thing is, night lasts maybe as long as the day (a very cool concept that put a grin on my face). Oh and wouldn't you know it, after almost 22 years of daylight, these poor people crash land on the planet only a few days before the long night falls. sucks to be you I guess.The film is actually the best sci-fi flick I've seen lately (which only demonstrates how bad the sci-fi has been this year). It's quite entertaining if you can get past how absurd it is. The trick is not to think too much when you're watching it. The script cleverly plays the personalities of the characters against each other. It plays the horror movie game of "who's the real bad guy?" for the entire length of the film as well as another old favorite, "who's going to die next?" If you just concentrate on these questions and not the story itself, which is full of holes, you'll have a good time at "Pitch Black."Grade: C+

As comic book reboot movies go, this is pretty good. It's got a really good cast, particularly Fassbender and McAvoy, and a nice sleek retro look. Kevin Bacon makes a great villain. But ... we're really looking at a movie that's about 75% uninteresting filler characters and keeps revisiting themes that the previous trilogy kinda drove into the ground. It does it's job, but it really isn't memorable.

But for anyone with even a substandard education should be laughing at what we're supposed to believe in this hot pile of garbage of a show. The fact that it's still on for (going on 5 seasons) is somewhat alarming. Aside from the plot holes, it panders far too much to the teenage crowd with romances and hookups that are a distraction. This show could have been something, but they put absolutely no effort or thought behind the hard concepts of the show, which makes it completely unwatchable for me, because I just can't suspend my disbelief that far.

This movie is an absolute waste of time. Anyone who has any serious interest in movies what so ever should spend their time doing anything other than to watch this.Normally I am a fan of horror movies, but The Cabin In The Woods is by far the worst one I have seen so far. It lacks everything a good movie should have. The story is like a joke, the characters are super stereotypical and very non-likable, and the special effects looks like someone made them in Photoshop 3.In fact, The Cabin In The Woods lacks everything even a decent movie should have. In a desperate attempt to try to hide the fact that the movie has nothing of value, the director hoped to disguise it all with the use of surprise-scenes that is suppose to make you jump (very much similar to the surprise shock-clips from Youtube when suddenly a witch appears and screams at the screen). The director Drew Goddard should never attempt to make a movie in this genre again, at least not until watching some real horror movies like I Saw The Devil or Grotesque.STAY AWAY FROM THIS. DO SOMETHING USEFUL INSTEAD LIKE KNITTING A SWEATER.

this is a cool movie. it is no.2 on my top ten, i love it! if you thought the first one was good, this one is better. Everything the first one had, this one has MORE. fans of the first one will not be disappointed. i give it an 11. o_0

This movie was amazing story, it takes us look at the other side of prisoners in prisons and how they feel when they return to society. Many people are ignore how they feel when back to society. There are so many thing we can learn in this movie. For the fans of Morgan Freeman, he did a ggrat job in this movie and other actor is very good also. Moreover,the film tells us that the truth will always win, although it requires a long time. Many things are not unexpected from this film. So for those who are bored with films that have a simple story, this might be a recommendation for you. You must focus to the movie when you watching it to get the meaning of the story. The story is very slick and classy.

Going into this show I had high expectations, everyone seemed to be hyping up this show. Unfortunately, I was let down by a poor plot and even worse characters. For a show that is being praised for its 'progressive' stance on suicide, it fails to talk about the main cause of suicide, mental illness. That would be fine if the majority of the reasons for Hannah Baker's death weren't so laughable. The show is built on the idea that they want you to be sympathetic towards Hannah, unfortunately, they start out with her dead already, thus not giving the audience any time to care for her or get to know her. The idea is that; through her tapes, we begin to care and understand her pain. The problem is that as we go through the tapes we begin to dislike Hannah, she is self-centered, selfish, aloof and above all constantly blames others and victimises herself. This flies in the face of what suicidal people feel, they blame themselves. The ultimate lesson they try to tell you at the end is 'to be nice to others' they had a chance to send a message that could really help those suffering like 'It's okay to talk' or 'There are people that care about you' but instead they go for a message centuries old.

You want a revenge thriller that isn't run of the mill ? Difficult task considering it's been done . In fact this entire film is a remake of another film from the 1980s when action thrillers were very fashionable . They were also fairly low brow with a host of big name stars or relatively well known actors , or relatively well known wannabe non actor stars ( Hello Chuck Norris ) getting a bit mean and moody and dispatching bad guys who were invariably part of a multi ethnic street gang or nasty communists in a variety of cruel and explicit ways . It's been done before and you'd better be bringing something new to the table . Considering MAN ON FIRE was written by Brian Helgeland the signs might be promising . Helgeland might be rather hit and miss but anyone who wrote brought LA CONFIDENTIAL to screen after everyone considered it to be unfilmable does deserve some respect . Dare I say that if it doesn't work out Helgeland might remain blameless ? I'm afraid that Helgeland has to take some blame for this movie failing . I read the synopsis and apparently it's about a bodyguard on the revenge trail after some seriously bad gringos because they've overstepped the mark by kidnapping a little girl . Obviously it wasn't a local Latina girl because that'd be business as usual so the audience are asked to empathise with the victim because it's a blond American child - and she's been kidnapped by Mexicans .Probably conscious that this film might inadvertently become a recruiting film for the Aryan Brotherhood the producers hit upon the bright idea of making the American bodyguard black . This is one of two major problems the film has 1 ) It stars Denzil Washington 2 ) It's directed by Tony Scott The major inciting incident of the actual kidnap doesn't take place until an hour in to the running time so thanks for nothing Brian and before we get there we have a character piece . See the problem ? We have a character piece starring Denzil Washington and directed by Tony Scott . Washington has always left me with indifference . He's not bad but by the same yardstick he's not someone who ever gives an outstanding performance in my opinion and he's asked to give a multi-layered performance as nice guy turned cold hearted assassin . A slight fail . What is an epic fail is someone thinking Tony Scott is a natural choice for a character driven story . He certainly doesn't give the impression he's suited for the talkative slow burning early scenes . When the action does finally take off Scott does what he normally does and ramps , over edits and uses crash zoom lens giving the impression you're watching a monster hybrid between a video game and an advert for rum . I suppose it could have been worse and we could have got Ben Affleck starring in a film directed by Michael Bay but that's not much in the way of praise as to what we did get

After all the hype about Skyfall I was disappointed in the movie. It is an average James Bond movie, with all the constituent pieces, chase scene(s), women, at least one archaic gadget (in Skyfall's case), and of course a super villain. But Skyfall was sorely lacking - I have seen better everything, over the years from this franchise, starting with my visit to the local movie theater in 1965, at the ripe age of 15 to watch Goldfinger. I have long been a fan of the series and have no serious argument with the Bonds' chosen over the years. Some, I thought more suitable than others, but all around, they all worked just fine.The problem with Skyfall is that the promotion of the movie worked out better than the movie itself, including dollars moving from my coffers to theirs. The promoters (critical and actual) get a 5 and the movie gets a 3. The downside is that many critics, who are supposed to be fair (as they are not the real promoters) stated in various tongue, that this is "the" must see James Bond. These nere-do-watch critics have forever lost credibility in my eyes.Roger Ebert who I generally include among the several movie critics I read before making an investment, probably because he's been around as long as I have, and, has been correct more than once, until now, gave SkyFall a 4 out of 4 - on a 2.5, absolute tops, movie! Possibly the medication.As always, caveat emptor, rent before you buy (or better, borrow a duped friend's:) and beware of movie critics bearing gifts.

But that aside, turn off the brain and try to enjoy this car/people chase shoot-'em-up. Think of this as a slightly classier "Transporter" without the kung fu.Spoilers Below:If you can't turn off the brain, you will see the movie has some really stupid and extremely unlikely scenes. Generally, every piece of advice that DeNiro's character gives, he violates later on in the movie.The characters have this unbelievably infallible ability to find each other as they run around from Paris, Nice, Arlen and back. But the car scenes are really the most stupid. They drive through traffic that would stop any car, no matter how well driven. The funniest part is watching DeNiro drive the chase car, he's scared witless.Oh and as the summary says, there is absolutely no plot. Someone should have taken "the metal case" that everyone was after and beaten it over the head of the screen writer or whomever made the decision to go with this screen play.

I am a bit of a fan of Stanley Kubrick and have decided to try and watch as many of his films as I can. This one was showing one afternoon and so it was duly recorded for a viewing at a later date. That later date came around today. Set during World War I, this film tells the story of a French Colonel who ends up with the unenviable task of defending three of his soldiers who are charged with cowardice.Colonel Dax, a lawyer in civilian life, cares very much about his troops and tries to do his best for them. When ordered by General Mireau to attack a well defended position called the 'Ant Hill', he follows orders, but the enemy proves too strong and his troops have to fall back. One platoon is trapped in the trenches and the General orders his own artillery to open fire on them. This order is not obeyed despite the General's threats to the officer commanding the artillery battery. After this debacle, and wishing to make an example, the General, along with his colleague, General Broulard, agrees to Court Martial three men for cowardice. Colonel Dax decides to act as their defence, but is not hopeful of a good outcome. The penalty for this crime is death by firing squad. The three men are selected by their unit commanders. At this point I'll leave my brief summary, I won't tell you the outcome because I don't want to give away too much.An excellent example of the filmmaker's art, I couldn't find fault with this film. It may look dated by today's standards, but given the era it was made and the budget available, it's a fine job. Also guilty of doing a great job was Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax, he really stands out as a quality actor in this one. Also worthy of note were Ralph Meeker as Cpl. Philippe Paris, Adolphe Menjou as Gen. George Broulard and George Macready as Gen. Paul Mireau.Everything about this film is well done, that is with one exception. The sound in the court martial scene is terrible, it's a big room and I found the echo of the voices quite an annoyance. That aside though, I thought the anti-war message got through loud and clear and you are left with no doubt who the enemy really is. I really enjoyed watching this film and I can recommend it very highly.My Score: 9.1/10

The Spiderman Franchise, having crashed and burned with the third movie, which had more villains than a point, is rebooted in this film. So after we've killed poor Uncle Ben again (this time played by Martin Sheen) we get about half a slow moving movie about awkward Peter Parker dealing with awkward teen stuff, and another half of the movie that is over the top, CGI overkill.The Villain De Jour is the Lizard, an otherwise kindly scientist who is driven mad by his formula in an attempt to regrow a lost arm.the movie is too disjointed, and it's not like we haven't seen his story a bunch of times before.I will give them credit for making the web-shooters a device instead of a natural ability that made no sense.

This film is saturated with absurdity, in an attempt to wow audiences with special effects they have already seen countless times in the likes of Die Hard and Bourne. Nothing new in this film, just a number of Hollywood cliché's, including the sob story told by a narrator in the third person, which ultimately turns out to be their own sob story, and even the Star Wars idea of the central character seeking to avenge their father's death, only for the villain to say "No, I am your father".The rest of the plot comprises of special effects, absurdity (laughing AT not WITH the film), excessive blood and shooting and swearing and achieves nothing by doing so. James McAvoy totally lets himself down in this role- he was brilliant in "Last King of Scotland", but doesn't do himself justice as soon as he starts speaking in a pretty naff American accent. His character isn't that believable, and his excessive swearing makes him more unrealistic, instead of realistic. The rest of the cast, including veteran Morgan Freeman, are paper-thin characters, which also lets them down as actors. As the characters die, it is difficult to be upset as you barely know them or sympathise with them.Although there were some interesting twists in the end, they fail to salvage a film that's only purpose was to try and lure people in with mindless violence, blood and bad language with very little substance. The script is also quite poor, like many modern action films. In my view, this is trying to outdo Goodfellas in violence, bad language and blood, but otherwise would fail miserably in competing on the scale of quality and credibility. A further demonstration of unoriginality in Hollywood film-making.

You'd think that in the decades since "Tora Tora Tora" (1970) and "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" (1944) that there was room for improvement, maybe a more personal story or a more historically accurate one. Instead comes this monstrosity, one of the worst war movies, or movies of any kind, I've ever seen. Not only does it take enormous license with the events at Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Britain and Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, but the plot centers on a hackneyed love-triangle plot that was worn out even in the 1940s. Even the highly touted "special effects" in this turkey look fake compared to the other films I've mentioned...this film belongs in a class with "Inchon".

I'm just appalled that they would go and make another film to try and continue the superman movie-series. Its really insulting to Christopher Reeve I think, especially since there's a certain bit of irony in the fact that Chris died in 2004.... so it's like "okay guys, lets start replacing him with new films, now that he's gone" - i mean, thats the vibe I get when I think about this film's existence! This is just another typical "media-hyped", BULLSHIT-modern-day film. It's sad....it really is! So many people thought that Superman IV (made in 1987) was terrible, and flopped because of the reviews. But if you really think about the storyline and forget about the lousy special effects (it was a low-budget film that was slashed, what do you expect!?), Supe 4 had a heart and a message in its plot. Certainly not as good as the first two Reeve films, but a better idea than Superman III -with Richard Pryor. People these days get so stuck and hung up on special effects and how REAL something looks, they totally forget about what made Hollywood in the 20th Century. Totally ridiculous if u ask me. I look for the "genuine'ness" of a film in the story and the acting. If I want special effects, all i got to do is make some on Adobe After Effects LOL. I hate going to the theaters today, and seeing nothing but smooth-textured CG! ITS CRAP! There's nothing classic about film making anymore like there was in the 70's, 80's, & 90's! That era is all over. Very seldomly have we seen an overall great film made between 2000-and now, 2006 that holds up to the "greats" of those old days, but when I do, they never have the new smooth textured looking CG! They're usually Drama's or things that don't require special effects. The problem with films these days is, there is no Balance. And what I mean is, in Actions, there's too much blowing stuff up, Sci-Fi's too much CGI!- and even though it looks impressive, it doesn't look authentic like live action! The best and still the most realistic CGI-film I've ever seen that still blows my mind today, is that of what was used for the T-1000 character in Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) -played by Robert Patrick. The problem is, the mentality of people these days is terrible. People are dumb. All of those yahoos that are gonna tell you that Superman Returns (2006) matches up to the classic Chris Reeve Superman movies (1978-1987, don't know their A*SES from a hole in the ground! People have NO taste in good movies these days, and its sad! The quality of films is dead now thanks to so many idiots! I don't mean to rat on SUPERMAN RETURNS only. Believe me, if I had the time to single out every bad movie and comment on it, I would, but I picked this one 'cause i just recently bought the DVD, and I also got all of my old favorite Christopher Reeve Supermans on DVD too, and this new film was fresh on my mind, it really irritated me, I WANT MY MONEY BACK FOR IT, and I think it's disgraceful to Chris Reeve, who made Superman the legend that it is.... or WAS until Superman Returns came along and killed it!!!!! :[ ;-/ :-I

Terrific hatchet-job story of Mark Zuckerberg, genius, oddball, killer-competitive greedfreak, and perhaps Asperger-afflicted founder of Facebook. Whether I agree about the value of Facebook is not relevant to the worth of this film, as it is one of the best high tech film stories of the new millennium and revolves around what is now just so critical to many millions of people around the world.....internet social networking(OMG!).Even though his mother may have overdone it with endless "be sure to close your mouth" admonitions in his youth(you'll see), Jesse Eisenberg was fantastic as the mind-in-his-head, maybe-inventor of internet social networking(but probably not, as shown)Zuckerberg, as was Andrew Garfield playing Eduardo Saverin, his his best friend and co-founder, maybe not as brainy but way more emotionally healthy. The rest of the cast was equally good, even Justin Timberlake was terrific, but with his outsized ego in full speed mode I am not sure he was "acting" as Sean Parker, the cocky inventor of Napster and world-class devious manipulator. This story sadly but powerfully showed so well that youthful vigor, uber-creative ideas, killer-competitive juices, and premier business connections and execution will always be the best allies to selling out all previously held moral/ethical principles for the sake of humongous bucks and great fame.But, that said, the massive in-your-face ironies of the story were what was most interesting by far. Zuckerberg, as shown, was not social at all but wanted desperately to create a "social network". He also initially didn't care a bit about being rich, but he is now America's youngest billionaire ever. He also didn't think advertising was "cool" on Facebook and was initially repulsed by it, but now his resistance ethics are well past totally sold-out and Facebook makes billions every year in advertising and rivals Google as the net's biggest ad bank. How many more personal ironies could the filmmaker have shown about Zuckerberg? And, can they all be that true?Thus, the story candidly displayed how easily and quickly one's honorable intentions can get left far behind when big money and fame arrives on the doorstep in truckloads. It also showed that even lifelong best friends and business partners are not safe when big success comes calling in its mask of many faces.See this perhaps best film of the year and learn some great net business startup savvy and pitfalls, but try not to get sucked into the money-making end of it. At least try for a minute or two to make your mom happy.

*Spoilers*'Equilibrium', written and directed by Kurt Wimmer is a bad movie. A bad, BAD movie. Borrowing a little from Lucas, a little from Bradbury & Orwell and a lot from the 'The Matrix', (unfortunately, none of the good parts) it tells the story of society in a fascist future that looks pretty similar to the Cultural Revolution, only with cooler weapons and lots of chrome. John Preston (Christian Bale) is a guy who walks around in priest's robes (I think he's actually called a priest, but I don't remember and honestly don't care to) kicking the asses of people who exhibit emotion and listen to Leo Sayer albums. Well, any albums, really. Culture is not welcome in this society thankyouverymuch, and Preston is the man to sniff it out and take care of the perpetrators. Unfortunately, in a life-altering epiphany (he was listening to an album that a woman he's hot for was hoarding) he decides that he can't do this anymore, so he joins the omnipresent Underground Movement who basically sees him for the sucker he is and enlist him to kill the big cheese so that society will then be free. Meanwhile, Preston is dogged by Brandt (Taye Diggs), another priest guy who wants to expose him for the turncoat he is.I almost don't have the energy to go into why 'Equilibrium' is so bad. Perhaps it is the 'Matrix'-esque action sequences, only these are closer to the third 'Matrix' film in terms of laughability and execution. I tried to explain it away logically; it's low budget. Nope, it had a budget of $20 million, there's no excuse. It was made by a 10 year old. Nope, Wimmer is past his teens. I can't excuse this one. The special effects sucked, the continuity was ridiculous (as tuned in to films as I am, I generally don't catch gaffes and continuity issues on my own, but I counted at least three glaring examples) and the story was bogus. It also had the most ineffective 'villains' I have seen this side of a Disney flick. Taye Diggs proves to be the MOST ineffective when the swords are drawn, and Dupont, (nice name) the big cheese played by Angus Macfadyen, literally made me laugh out loud with his slap-fight technique of combat. I'm not even going to talk about Emily Watson as the love interest (with about five minutes of aggregate film time) because I respect her enough to give her a pass this one time.It's been awhile since I saw a movie as crappy as this one, so I'm actually kind of glad I saw it; it reiterated how much better 98% of films are. Poor shiny-faced Christian Bale. I have a feeling that Christopher Nolan saw this and said, 'We need to save this guy's career' and cast him as Bruce Wayne. I hated this movie. 2/10 (Because I just feel so sorry for Emily Watson)Shelly

I saw this delightful film yesterday at the Chicago International Film Festival, and I must warn you, there was not a dry eye in the house. This movie wasamazingly well done. It was fun to see how, even if it isn't necessarily true, J.M. Barrie picked up inspirations here and there for the characters and story of Peter Pan. What stood out in this film the most to me was the acting. Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore in particular delivered outstanding performances, and Ilook foreward to seeing them together again in Charlie and the ChocolateFactory. This is a great movie for all ages because there was no objectionable language(that i can recall), no inappropriate scenes, and no realistic violence. Children under the age of seven or eight might not enjoy it as much, though,seeing how they might not understand it. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

Returning to life at home for our overseas fighting men was not as easy as we here at home may have assumed,and McKinlay Kantor thought it important to write about this fact.The novel caught the attention of Hollywood and soon we were seeing it well illustrated on the big screen.War changes a man to one degree or another,either physically or emotionally or perhaps both.The passage of time doesn't help either,and things at home change a little.Their children grow,and they were unable to be there to witness it firsthand.Again,this makes the adjustment harder.For 4 years,all they knew was war,and they find themselves faced with the impossible task of picking up where they had left off.It's a worthwhile story to engross yourself in.While much of what you see here represents a world that does not exist anymore,the difficulties of adjusting to life at home after war ring true still today.

Somewhere in Harmony Korine's tenuous tale of teenage angst there's a point. But for some reason all I seem to remember are all those slow-motion shots on a sun-kissed beach of rowdy teenagers, drunk and highout of their minds, acting up in nothing but their birthday suits. It's 'Kids' all over again. The film follows a fearsome feminine foursome on their mission to do whatever it takes to get enough money to enjoy spring break, that supposedly special time for American youths which sees them forget their studies to concentrate on the more important part of school life – getting absolutely wasted.Chubby-faced cherub Selena Gomez and voluptuous Vanessa Hudgens swap the Disney channel for the Adult one, as they prowl around half-naked with two other girls on the streets of Florida's neon night time. Cash strapped, they decide, inexplicably, to hold up a diner – with water pistols! They triumph in their daring raid but are quickly jailed for forgetting to remain inconspicuous. A gangster-rapper named Alien (James Franco) bails them out on the condition that they be his personal playthings. This is where the story gets carried away with itself. The girls' transition from independent women to teeny-bopping slaves is so sudden and incredulous that I felt cheated. Two girls become scared of Alien's violent, excessive world and decide to go home. The other two stay and become his bodyguards as well as lovers. Alien plans to takeover the Florida coast underworld but knows this will require killing his former boss (Gucci Mane). At this point the story dies and gives way to random horseplay, involving armed robberies, wanton murders and Alien wooing his two slave girls, in one example by singing a Britney Spears song. Other distractions include scene repetition, and Alien's incessant mouthing of 'spring break' in voice-over. Franco, buff and braided, gives a towering performance that excuses him for the shambles that was 'Oz'. It must have been a very difficult character to get right because of how idiosyncratic it is. Every bad choice could have led to disaster. Not sure he gets the accent totally right, though, unless 'y'all' is meant to come out as 'you all' in a Southern drawl.One pivotal scene instantly repelled me. Alien shows off his awesome arsenal in his beach house ('look at all ma she-at' he repeats) while the two girls feign interest. Suddenly they have him at gun point and force him to do what no man should have to do to his own gun. They scare him, ridicule him and take pleasure in doing so. But then there's more incredulity: they give up the act and allow themselves to be fondled by him. If the story had courage and respect for its feminist tone, it would have been much better to run with a story of how the two girls use Alien to live a life of excess and then turn against him at his most vulnerable moment. That would be a spring break to remember.

I really liked this movie. I loved the fact that Violet was determined to move to New York and pursue her dream (something I've wanted to do since I was 6 years old) as a singer. This movie really inspires me to compose music (NOT dance on a bar! - LOL). I thought that Kevin had some awesome dance moves, and he seemed like an overall nice guy (something I have a hard time finding for some reason). He tried his best to cure Violet of her so-called "stage fright", which I can proudly say I have FINALLY overcome after years of jamming' parties and karaoke! She never gave up, even after her apartment was broken in to and it seemed like the whole world around her was falling apart. Her father finally came around, and all it took was a car accident! HAH! And I betcha he married his nurse! Overall very entertaining, and I give it 2 thumbs up!

...but unfortunately, Battlefield Earth isn't laughably bad. Getting a laugh out of this movie is, perhaps, its only potential redeeming feature, but even in that it failed. The only feeling I got was that I had somehow irretrievably lost 2 hours of my life while trying to be either amazed or entertained. So let's go over some of the obvious points:Character Identification: The hero had the approximate personality of a brick wall, or Lawrence Welk--i.e. none. The characters all practically define the term "one-dimensional." Quite frankly, they all could have died, and I could have cared less. And if they died in some unusual and twisted manner, which unfortunately they didn't, I would have laughed because I was that apathetic about them.Plot: It's your basic rebellion story served up again. Neglecting the gaping holes other users have mentioned, it still is nothing new or significant.Dialogue and Acting: Dreadful. Given that the character concepts were so cheap, the actors didn't have much to work with, but they still managed to fall short of the mark set for them. Travolta particularly annoyed the hell out of me with his "evil" portrayal.To the people who liked this movie, all I can say is, "silly man-animals."

I thought this movie was FANTASTIC! It is funny, and she has a tank. What's not to like? It really is just a silly little movie, not to be taken very seriously, or at all for that matter. It's got the whole "girl power" thing going on too, which usually is kinda annoying, but works in this movie. and Tank Girl is so punky and cute(like, in an adorable kinda way)! the music is awesome too. It has Veruca Salt, which in and in it's self is fabulous. bush and hole too? wow! it's like a trip down musical memory lane for me. I would recommend everyone watch this movie, although it's the type of movie that most people would hate and think was stupid. i loved it....and I've always wanted a tank.

Approaching the film as an independent story, with no ties to the How to Train Your Dragon books, it's a well-made, appealing animation. The plot is a little formulaic, with no demanding characters or twists. As a movie for kids, it works well. The music and visuals are very impressive.In regard to the books, the film discards the vast majority of the source material (from the first book alone), except for the cosmetic setting details, and names. It completely abandons the heart of the books, which was a very different dynamic between the main characters. Some characters are represented by name, in the animation, but are not recognizable; another is invented to fill a recycled plot requirement.I feel it would be more accurate to describe the movie as inspired by the books, as no real effort is made to adapt them directly, which is a real shame.

The Pursuit of Happiness follows the story of Chris Gardner and his five year old son Christopher in the early eighties as they end up on the street after Chris's wife leaves them. Gardner struggles to pay bills, do his job well where has to sell a advanced x-ray machine to hospitals to earn money. He and his son end up sleeping on the streets, at a motel, a bathroom and a homeless shelter and his only hope is a stockbroker internship programme with twenty applicants and only one can be hired.This film in a way is similar to the phenomenal Seven Pounds with Gabrille Muccino of sadness etc. I was really looking forward to this film and thought it would be amazing if not very good. People have described this as inspiring, hopeful and emotional. I felt none of that. This was so bitterly disappointing for me. To me this movie is just plain crap. Will Smith gives a reasonable performance, but I expected much more. I know this is based on a true story and living on the streets is bleak and horrifying and the film depicts it realistically well, but it just gets crammed down your throat constantly as though you are too dumb as an audience to understand what is happening. Gardner runs after people who steal his x-ray machine, he gets some money to get by, he loses some,find a place to sleep with a bed then has to sleep on the street. It's like a repeating time loop and just becomes so repetitive that I just got bored and very annoyed. There are a few touching moments between Smith and his real life son Jaden who plays Christopher but it's few and far between and when it does come it's far too late. I just didn't care about them or there story.There is little or if no hope in this film at all even though he's pursuing happiness. So he gets the job at the end? It's more like the money that makes him happy.This films mocks you with the title as there is no happiness and though the ending is meant to depict that. I felt nothing and I was uninspired. Not to mention in moments when the film is sad there is happy music. What's that about? There's little bonding between father and son and even the son was getting on my nerves. One of the most disappointing and overpraised movies I have seen. I just feel depressed, very annoyed and absolutely conned. Seven Pounds is fantastic see that instead. Not this deceitful boring garbage.

Now Channing Tatum could stand next to Johnny Depp and say "21 Jump Street made me a star." The TV show was really good and had very good acting. If it was still running then it could win awards very easily. Most of the time when unknowns are a part of the cast of a film adaptation of a great TV series it turns into a disappointment. For example, the only redeeming value of the Lost in Space movie were the action sequences. But still, they couldn't overcome a lack luster story. However, 21 Jump Street is different. It is actually a great movie and made me a fan of the TV show too. Holly Robinson's cameo reprising her role as Hobbs is okay, but she only appears once and that is for just a few seconds. The best cameo goes to Depp and Peter DeLuise as Hanson and Penhall. 21 Jump Street could be the only movie that prevents Ted from winning the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical.

As i was watching Everest i had a strange feeling i was about to share the fate of some of the characters in this movie, that i wouldn't make it. And sure enough my journey up Everest lasted roughly 80 mins. I understood that this mountain movie was not going to be in the same vein as flicks like Cliffhanger or Vertical Limit, so i was quite interested in this movie as i thought it would be a deep driven character narrative story not some lame absolute soul sucking dreck of a movie. From the get go this flick had no hope as the actors involved were lumped in to performing some of the most laughable dialogue i have heard in any movie for a long time and once they finally decided to leave one of the 3000 base camps they continuously traveled between and begin the ascent up Everest it turned in to an even more hilarious clichéd piece of crap. The only saving grace for this movie is the drop dead gorgeous camera work that captures the beauty of such a harsh environment, but i'm sorry i need a bit more in a movie then just that. I must note as well due to the quality of actors i thought that at least the individual performances would bring something to the table,but i was wrong. I have seen better acting from extras in porno movies so this would have to go in the back of the resume of every involved. Overall just a horrible experience and one i hope anyone who reads this review will avoid.

This wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it still isn't very good. The first movie was the funniest out of all of them and the second one was OK and provided a few good laughs, but this is the weakest. My main problem is that it barely feels like a Beverly Hills Cop movie. It feels like it's a movie about Eddie Murphy hanging out at an amusement park. Some of the jokes are just mildly funny, but the one that stood out the most in my opinion was the counterfeit money with Axel Foley's face. So far this is the only John Landis movie I do not care for which is a shame since he is a good director. This isn't his worst movie, (So far it's The Haunted Mansion.) but it was the beginning of Eddie Murphy's downfall. He tried to redeem himself with Tower Heist, but some idiot made A Thousand Words and now he's back to square one again. I hope he starts acting in good movies again because I don't want him remembered by today's generation as the Daddy Daycare guy.

I have decided to watch this film today and I thought it was going to be alright to watch. After 30 minutes, I just had to stop the movie, it was just plain boring and dull. I felt there was no feeling involved with the characters. Even though I liked Johnny Depps costume, I would rather if he was a real wolf then a humanoid. It's like he'll just wear it as if the whole movie was a Halloween Party, it just looked completely ridiculous!Red Riding Hood wasn't even suppose to be selfish or a wimp, she was meant to be kind and have a sweet personality. Lilla Crawford didn't even show us any light at all, she just showed us no light. She would be better in other roles but definitely this was one of her worst ones!The music was alright but too overrated. Yeah it's a musical but it isn't like the other well known Disney movies where you get the song stuck in your head. They have put on far too much on the soundtrack, maybe more talking, less singing would've made this film work well!Also couldn't they have picked a better narrator then James Corden, he doesn't have a good voice to be the speaker in my opinion. They could've got someone better with a beautiful voice like Jude Law or anybody who you would be able to fall in love! I'm glad I haven't watched the rest of the movie and I'm not gonna bother too, it'll waste more of my time!

The first 10 minutes are great and heartfelt, but the rest of the movie is just standard kiddie-animated-action-movie fare, but without any really funny gags or interesting or quirky characters. It seems for a lot of people the central premise/moral of the story touches a nerve, but that one idea alone isn't enough to lift the movie above an average rating.The animation is very good, as one has come to expect from Pixar, but sorry, the bar has been raised - in 2009 this level of quality has become the norm, i.e. average.The character development is good for Carl Fredricksen, but lacks depth for Russell and also for Charles Munts. Carl is really the only person in the movie who you kind of get attached to, but again, mainly due to the first 10 minutes montage of his life.The movie doesn't contain a lot of humour - the one it does have seems forced and silly (dog voice collars, the bird swallowing Carl's walking stick, etc. - yawn). This movie is nowhere near the league of Pixar greats ranging from Toy Story to Wall-E. For other studios this might be considered good, but for Pixar I would consider it average at best.

I entered my local movie theater with very high expectations. A couple of my friends had seen this movie and declared that it was the best James Bond movie since the days of Connery. THEY WERE WRONG!!!! I was very disappointed. The quips were forced and very cheesy. The gadgets were pitiful, any "super" boat that takes ten minutes to take out a cabin cruiser is good for nothing. The two bond girls although quite aesthetically pleasing acted their perspective roles terribly. Sophie Marceau may be a good actress, but she was supposed to be the daughter of a British lord and she has such a thick French accent. It seemed at times that she might be trying to fake a British accent but this just slurred her lines and made the character worse. The villain was utterly ridiculous. Oh my goodness.... he has a bullet in his head... well, whoopty-doo I am just petrified! His accent was also pretty stupid. Valentine, who was quite believable in Goldeneye came off as some sort of chump. He utterly hated Bond and suddenly he is his ally? I don't think so. This movie represented the first time I was steered wrong by an Internet Movie Database Rating. I think that most of the people who wrote reviews for this movie accidently walked into the theater where "Fight Club" was showing and wrote their reviews based on that beautiful movie thinking it was "The World is not enough". Jolly bad show. 3/10

I saw the movie, I know that this movie is based on Frank Millers Graphic Novel , but how can someone never care for our nation pride and show such a golden civilization as this? Show Aryans as monsters?This movie is obvious distortions in historical facts can be verified by anyone willing to consult the vast body of scholarly literature on the subject. The Persian Empire established by Cyrus the great, the writer of the first human right declaration, was the most magnificent and civilized empire in 480 B.C. It was their honesty and integrity that gave ancient Persians credibility to rule the world, even in the eyes of the people of the conquered nations(Herodotus, mid 5th century BC) Even miracles are not that unrealistic. Learn to use your brain and don't let others tell you how to think... I am really sorry for these film makers.honestly, 300 against a million, are they mad....

Why can't people show a little respect to the scriptures? Why does widdle widley scat take on a project like this only to destroy his own reputation. Like my Scottish mother in law would say "this film is CRAAAAP!" an attempt at propaganda is the best this can be. for the NDSAP left-wing liberal truth hating mob. get rid of rudely! You want to hear more. I can go on all day!! Who is this film made for? If you're trying to appeal to the expressed desire for religious stories evidenced by Mel Gibson's "The Passion". Which was a winner. He stayed true because he believes. Maybe Director's who believe not that a God who lives outside of the time space construct, who is capable of manufacturing this universe we find ourselves in, shouldn't be making films insulting those who hold these scripture words as truth. You cringe at the the Islamic protest out of fear. Show the same respect to the Judeo-Christian community. We are larger than the Islamic horde, we are more highly educated and we are better armed.

Being a bookworm, one would think that this would be the title of one of my favorite books. Surprise, I've actually never read it. But after watching this movie for the first time, I will 10% be buying a copy to read. I never understood how so many people could love a movie remake of a book, let alone consider it a classic; now I see why. Watching this movie was like riding a roller-coaster of emotions. One minute I was getting nostalgic, the next I was bursting with laughter, but most of the time I was crying. Everything this movie did hit me right in the feelings. Constantly bringing up happy, sad, angry memories. I absolutely loved this movie. I will definitely make it a regular.

Wow I'm so addicted to this movie! I LOVE it!! It was everything. Happy, sad, funny, caring, and especially action packed (although the people I was with at the theater didn't think so. They said there was too much talking. LOL!! Whatever.) The one line (out of many) that I get a kick out of in the beginning. When Logan first gives Charles the two pills and says, "why don't you blow on them to make them safe." That's when we were all surprised to hear Charles reply, "F*ck off Logan." LOL!!. A new side of Charles that we haven't seen before, A incredible Wolverine, and a extremely impressive Laura. This movie deserves an Oscar nomination for best picture

I have to say that Dumb and Dumber is my favorite Farrley's brother movie, however this is VERY close second. It's funny when I think about the fact that Cameron Diaz and Ben Stiller were actually in a romantic comedy together, but the truth is, they were both perfect for the roles that they played. There is something about Cameron, and she was made for this part.After a humiliating and basically unforgettable Prom night, when he was sixteen, Greg (Stiller) never fully recovers from the humiliation he suffered thirteen years earlier. He decides, that even though it's been several years, he'd like to look up the girl he essentially blew all of his chances with, so long ago.He hires a private detective to look into finding her, since Greg lives in Rhode Island, and Mary (Diaz) lives in Miami, FL. After finding her, and following her around, he falls in love with her too, and tells Greg that she is not worth his time and tries to get him to forget about her.Even though, Greg is discouraged he decides to look into finding her anyway. Along the way to Florida, he runs into some trouble with the law (which I won't give away, but the police scene is probably the funniest in the entire movie. For those who have seen the movie, I'm referring to the part with the two officers, who think he's done something other than what he thinks he's being charged for.), ans finally makes it to Florida.While he's there, Pat (Dillan), the P.I., learns of Greg's coming, and the two try to get one another out of Mary's life. With other mishaps, and funny situations that go on in the film, it's one of the most well-written scripts, and funniest films to watch ever.I recommend it to anyone who likes a good comedy, however there is some pretty graphic dialogue from time to time, so I wouldn't suggest the film to anyone under seventeen. But, it is funny and I've seen it countless times. And now, an excerpt from the film: "Greg, this wasn't your first time, was it?" "No." "How many we talking' here?" "My whole life? I dunno. Twenty-five, maybe fifty. I dunno, who keeps track? Look I know that this is like the Bible belt down here, but where I'm from this is not that big a deal."

There's not many movies I will turn off just because it is too predictable or too boring. Unfortunately this Transformers hits both. It is predictable and boring. I don't even want to type about it for fear of falling asleep.I turned this off ~75% through the movie. Just couldn't go on. A very rare occurrence.Good things in the movie: people actually die (drama factor), main/first(?) bad Transformer isn't a psycho killing autobots for no reason, main/ maybe secondary(?) villain is not as bad as we are lead to believe, and inventor being the main character is a huge step up from a random kid.Bad things in the movie: empathy for the characters is spread way too thin, first it is the main hero, then the main hero's daughter's boyfriend, then autobots, then someone else, then secondary villain, then some other autobots, and then Prime, and yeah. I am sure the ending was amazing, except I didn't watch it to that point, can't imagine it changes anything. Good guys win. Prime decides to keep saving humans. Feel goodness. OK sleep time.

I consider this movie to be a classic, and for good reason. The CGI is amazing, even for today's standards, and this was released back in '91! The action is explosive, the directing is superb, and the acting was very good, at least believable! Action movies don't require a lot of acting, heck even a coherent plot, but this movie delivers both big time thanks to film master, James Cameron. The plot sets back in '91, where we see the famous "Ahhnold!" teleported back in time, not to kill Sarah Conner or even her son, but to protect them, from the vicious, more advanced T-1000! The plot change is enough to make fan excited, because now you know your in a whole new better adventure, and not just more of the same. It's actually very touching to see "The Terminator" develop a relationship with young John Conner within the movie as it progresses. I'll admit, I wept a little bit in the end when "the terminator" sacrificed himself for the good of man kind, and as he's drowning in the pool of lava, he gives a thumbs up to John for a mission accomplished, seeming that "the terminator" actually has a conscience, if not a heart. For me though, I give this movie two thumbs way up! The effects are awesome, especially from the T-1000 aka liquid metal, it has the most memorable action/chase scene I can remember in a movie when T-1000 is chasing little John Conner with a big mack truck. Bottom line, this movie has it all. It's not just a terrific action film, it's a terrific film period!!

"I LIKE THE BEAR," a little girl exclaimed behind me during the first few minutes of Paddington. The delighted reaction took me by surprise, and then it turned into a reminder. The farther I drift away from childhood, the longer I avoid interacting with elementary-aged children, there is a tendency to forget that there is such a thing as kids movies and family movies. I saw The LEGO Movie with my dad, true, but even then, it felt like I was watching a slightly sanitized version of The Simpsons instead of a reprehensible Pixar knockoff.These days, family movies try as hard as they can to appeal to the kiddos and their parents; maybe executives know how excruciating it can be to sit through a particularly painful foray into baby-talk and recycled jokes. Though it isn't my personal favorite genre, it is undeniable that family films please more routinely than any other category in film. So much emphasis is put onto each project that it's rare to find a stinker among the handful.But most children's films are only good, entertaining for the time being but not packed with enough quality to have an impact for more than a few months. Imagine my surprise when Paddington went from 0 to 60, straight into my cynical heart. Paddington is far too marvelous to throw around the effective cliché that it has something for the kids and something for the adults; like Babe, The Muppets, and yes, even Frozen, it transcends our prejudiced assumptions and takes us inside a fairy tale where anything can happen. It doesn't matter what age we are; it is as if you could throw dust into the air, only to find it fall in a golden flurry. Paddington shouldn't work, but it does. It does so well, in fact, that I can say with full confidence that it is one of the best genre films of the decade.Paddington the Bear is already a beloved literary figure, of course, but when we first meet him in his own star vehicle, it is as though he is new again. As the film begins, we find him living in Darkest, Peru with his aunt and uncle (Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon), both of whom are marmalade obsessed and intelligent enough to speak in cultured British accents. The film explains this noteworthy phenomenon: decades earlier, an explorer arrived in Peru, and, smitten with the bears otherworldly craftiness, taught them how to act as if they were civilized human beings.After tragedy strikes, Paddington's aunt decides that it would be best if her nephew went to find a home in London. When he arrives at a train station, most disregard his exuberant politeness, but not Mrs. Brown (Sally Hawkins). Her family looks at him with differing levels of judgment, especially her husband (Hugh Bonneville), but the Brown's pity him, eventually deciding to take him in.Paddington may have inimitable manners, but he surely isn't gifted when it comes to gracefulness (in a hilariously mounted comedic sequence, Paddington discovers the joys of the family bathroom, only to flood the entire house). Most would give him up, but with his considerable charm to make up for his klutziness, he even wins over Mr. Brown. But just as things begin to look up into storybook heaven, Millicent Clyde (a scene- stealing Nicole Kidman) enters the scene, a blood-thirsty taxidermist who wants nothing more than to stuff Paddington for her latest exhibit.With its candy-colored imagery and bouncy humor, Paddington is impossible to resist, a feature that really and truly makes you relive the glorious innocence of childhood. Voiced by the genial Ben Whishaw, Paddington is a fluffy friend for the ages, more cuddly and comical than Despicable Me's famed Minions. The CGI used to flesh him out is so convincing that every single strand of fur sticks out with remarkable detail; there were times I forgot that Paddington is an outright miracle of animation, not a real-life talent I could meet on the red carpet. There you have it. Paddington doesn't need an analysis, nor does it need a critic to highlight how much of a wonder it is. It is an unusually magical and unusually well-crafted family movie that needs to be watched immediately. Take you mom, take your dad, take your sister, take your brother — take anybody. Because, like the little girl who sat behind me during its extraordinary 95 minutes, I like the bear.Read more reviews at petersonreviews.com

Well, to start with, I don't think this story's premise is unfamiliar to everyone, but this version tosses in a new message: "be kind and have courage at all times" which the title character keeps repeating throughout- even though she is really neither brave, nor even really kind unless it's to the mice she keeps feeding. Nope, instead this Cinderella is just a pushover and also kind of an airhead who actually starts calling herself "Cinderella"- a cruel nickname her evil stepsisters came up with to mock her, thus truly giving her "evil" step-siblings power over her. This Cinderella also has a weird, wide-eyed expression throughout the movie as if saying "you're so mean to me, but I'm such a good person I'll take it" to everyone who does her wrong. I'm not sure if that is Lily James' fault, or the writing. For me, the best re-telling of the "Cinderella" story is "Ever After" with Drew Barrymore. In that film, Cinderella IS actually both kind and brave, saving the prince's life and even using a sword to fight her way out of a sticky situation. The bravest thing Cinderella does in this film is not wear any makeup in front of the prince. If you're looking for a better Cinderella re-telling, I'd recommend "Ever After" or even just stick to the original animated film since "Ever After" uses no special effects or CGI to create magic.The film does look very pretty, and costumes and sets are beautiful. However, it relies far too much on CGI, if you ask me. Acting-wise, Cate Blanchett is by far the best thing about this movie, then of course she is pretty much great in anything. Lily James, IMO, is just not a very good actress and not charismatic enough to have a lead role in a film. Also, I wonder who decided it was a good idea to put her in a blonde wig without dyeing her very dark eyebrows? That looked strange to me. Richard Madden as the prince for me just did not work.All in all, I'm glad I watched it since I got to see the great scenery, costumes, and a great performance from Blanchett. However, I wouldn't watch it again.

I had heard that this was merely a "chick flick." Hey, my wife is the one who wanted to go see it. As it turned out, I went with three other guys, and we all loved it.Some movies entertain; some teach; some open up new worlds. This movie opened up new worlds. With each passing scene, carefully woven from the previous ones, it was like crossing yet another threshold into another world. The story unfolded deeper and deeper with each new scene, each layer adding not to complexity (the story is rather simple), but to the depth. Depp and the others (esp. the young actor who played Peter) easily lead the audience deeper and deeper into the paths of authenticity, healing, love, friendship and the triumph of inner strength. The other characters, likewise, garnish the central story excellently.The only flaw I saw is, I'm sure, a matter of taste and perspective; I felt the grandmother was simply too two-dimensional and not as believable as she should have been, though she, too, had some beautiful moments that truly added to the film.Having much experience with divorce (being a divorce attorney) I found the unfortunate relationship between Depp's character and his wife believable to a tee: two people deeply in love with each other yet more committed to personal pursuits than tending the difficult relationship we call marriage. Ironically, though Depp's character ultimately became the main caretaker of the four boys, by following the tender feelings of his heart, he allowed his marriage to evaporate by not following the other tender feelings of his heart.Nearly perfect. I give it a 9 out of 10.

Rotten, sheer rotten. A few of the action scenes and some of the gadgets are quite good and they are what has got my rating up to 2 but everything else is just plain rotten.The story is just the same old regurgitated drivel that similar action movies use. And what a film needs to stand out when using a stereotypical back-story is good acting. They may as well have cast the toy G.I Joe's for this film because the acting is atrocious. Dwayne Johnson is slowly becoming my least favourite actor. And Bruce? What's happened to you man? The same man who was amazing in Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, Unbreakable, Sixth Sense, Sin City etc etc etc. And now you're starring in god awful films like this. I thought Cop Out was bad but my god.Everything about the human beings in this film annoyed me; the cool tank thing that cheeseball Dwayne was driving was in fact more entertaining than anyone. Anyways G.I Joe clearly has it's fans and i must be a minority or something because i was hard pressed to even give it a 2.

I am a huge Hellraiser fan, and I don't see all of the obvious similarities that everyone else thinks are so blatant. I didn't think Aliens was anything special when I saw it, but that was a long time ago, so I can't say if Event Horizon ripped it off. All I know is that this is, by far, one of the most fantastic horror films that I have ever seen. I wasn't even going to watch it, thinking that it was another boring sci-fi flick, but my brother and my mom convinced me that I should, but left me thinking that it was sci-fi. I was intrigued almost immediately, and realized that this was horror in the truest sense of the word. Event Horizon may have some things in common with other movies, but what movie doesn't. I think that it was a very original concept, and I loved it. It has some fascinating and thought-provoking lines that just transfixed me. And to the idiot who coughs about Scream, as if that wasn't the most worthless film ever made. I gave it a one, but I wish I could have given it a -10. Event Horizon is innovative and a great and fascinating movie. It is on my top 5 for greatest horror films ever made (the others being Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dellamorte Dellamore, Hellraiser, and A Nightmare On Elm Street).

A great film regardless of the abuse which showered it. I thought the concept was inspirational and revolutionary.People get influenced easily by critics and mass populist opinions which I guess was why a lot didn't like it.A film about life.An imperfect simple man showing simple people that they don't have to live by the rules of, and under the oppression of an egomaniacs control, subjugation and perceived power.You must watch this film, the cinematography hawks my mind back to planet of the apes at some points, and if you watch it from start to finish properly you WILL be effected by the "corny" bits. One must make allowances for these when a director/film maker has tried to bring to life a concept which is so simple but at the same time to revolutionary and empowering.The final scene with the emotional confrontation and the line "It doesn't have to be this way" was one of the most powerful lines and concepts depicted on film. The postman was one of the most intriguing and engaging films I've ever seen - and the characters and their development was fantastic. Everyone should see this film.I think either critics seriously overlooked this film, or had political reasons to do so.

It is my understanding that, according to a many music historians and musicologists, Antonio Salieri did conspire against Mozart. And while this may be worhty of some interest as a footnote or even a few paragraphs in a Mozart biography, it is not a justification for the bloated treatment rendered in "Amadeus." Lacking a good enough slant for a powerful dramatic depiction, the writer latched on to this gimmick to propel the story to a wider audience. While we can be grateful for an opportunity to hear this great music and thrill to the recreation of some of the period settings, we cannot be happy about this distorted approach to biography. Nor can we feel elated over the decision to make the character of Mozart a cackling, show-off buffoon. There is a great deal missing from this composer biography, and it is saddening to think that this may be considered a definitive depiction of the life of this great composer. There comes a point when historical accuracy and integrity must override purely commercial motives.

A really charming film, even if, as an American, I care little for soccer. This film is set in what looks to be a VERY prosperous Indian/Sikh immigrant community in a London suburb. Very good work by the entire cast, but particularly for the star, Parminder Nagra. I saw her understated charm in her recent role on "ER" so I decided to check out this movie. She was worth it. Yes, many of the same themes were explored in the recent "Real Women Have Curves" although that one carried a rather harder edge. This is a feel-good movie, and even if the plot turns were somewhat formulaic, they were done very well. I recommend. Grade: A-

american pie 2 has nothing new to offer, the same old characters with the same old problems doing the same old stupid things ... geez!!! and you thought they would grow up - the people that need to grow up are the ones making the movies ... guys .. its not funny any more - but then again - i guess a whole new generation of pubescent nerds have to discover the movie - don't they?a lousy 2

FIGHT CLUB IS THE GREATEST FILM OF 1999! But wait, let me start at the beginning. Contrary to popular belief, FIGHT CLUB is not a "depraved film about a bunch of guys who beat each other up, which will turn all men into Space Monkeys." It is the deepest, most intelligent and stylish film for ages. We start in the Narrator's (Edward Norton) brain and we stay there for the rest of the film. We go out of his brain, through his nostril's and down the barrel of a gun in a beginning sequence to rival Se7en's. Then we see that Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) is holding the gun. Then we swoop down the building and into a van, where there are explosives which are going to be used to destroy all the major credit card company's buildings. "I know this," tells the Narrator, "because Tyler knows this." You won't know what any of this means until the final credits. We go back a little, to the days of the Narrator's insomnia, which is only cured by going to cancer support groups. Everything is fine for the Narrator until a woman named Marla Singer (Helen Bonham Carter) starts 'visiting' the support groups too. They work out squedules and Narrator can sleep again. Then he meets Tyler Durden on a plane and it all hits the fan. They start up a Fight Club for all of those who are like the Narrator, which soon leads to terrorist attacks on consumerism. Oh yeah, there's also a killer twist thrown in for good measure. What makes Fight Club the best film for ages is that the script itself is superb, and the direction by David Fincher is his most darkest and stylish yet. The lighting is lowkey, there is some Matrixy camerawork, there are subliminal messages (which are pointed out on the DVD commentry) and Fincher sometimes wobbles the fabric of the film itself. All in all, a first class package, superb performances, direction, oh, and let's not forget the perfect music from the Dust Brothers. A first class film, and a wake-up call for the Generation Xers. "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake, you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else! We are all members of the same compost heap!"

First of all, I haven't read the books, and didn't know what to expect either from the first or the second of the Hunger Games outings. So I base this purely on the cinema experience.I watched this in a full cinema on the world premiere day, and found that the 2,5 hour long film wasn't too long at all. I tend to hate long movies, but this story is told in such an attractive way, that it keeps you seated. A couple of scenes are very effective and scary, others are really deep felt and moving. A film not only for youngsters, but a film which can entertain anyone, with twist and turns. Giving afterthoughts, and maybe also a greater understanding of importance of a free society without Big Brother watching you everywhere.I'm impressed with both the acting and the plot. It's somehow a genius idea this, to arrange some kind of reality show in a future dystopia version of George Orwell's 1984. The actors are living the film, so credits to to director. No surprise. He's done it before. I like how this film nods to a lot of classic movies and stories. Not only 1984, but there's lots, like the Old Testament of the Bible, The Birds, Lord of the Flies a.s.o. As a film buff, I enjoy this.Impressive enough, I found this better than the first, and despite the odd ending before the third, it'll be interesting to see the next in a years time. This unlike The Hobbit, which have thrown me off completely after the boring first dinner movie. Though this being a transport lap before the next, an 8/10 here is impressive. Good film making, and more interesting than most garbage served the younger generations in cinemas. Believe the hype!

OKay if you loved Lord of the rings and you want to see other Peter Jackson Movies don't expect them to be as good as Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying that this movie is horrible but its one of those gory movies probably the goreist movie in the entire world. Some parts are really funny but most of the movie is just gross its really hard to watch. but its a really great movie and if you are looking to become a filmmaker you should watch this movie. some of the shots that perter uses are really smart and a lot of the special FX are smart. my favorite parts are: The mother killing the rat after it bits her, the lawnmower scene, main character taking zombie baby to the park.

What is the formula behind making the perfect gangster movie? It has to be long, short gangster movies seldom work. There has to be a wide variety of characters, movies like "The Hoodlum" were dull because there were only a few main characters there. Here even the minor characters are well developed, enough to catch your eye. And last, it has to show some violence but in moderate quantities. There is some violence here, most notably in the "Billy Batts scene", but it never overflows, "Casino" had far more violent scenes than this film. If there is no violence whatsoever, then the movie can't be an effective gangster/mafia movie.But what is perhaps most appealing with this film is that, in contrast to movies like The Godfather trilogy, Scarface and Casino, this movie is based 100% on real events and characters. Only a few names are altered, the rest is all authentic.Robert De Niro again delivers, even though I think he has been somewhat miscast as Jimmy (Burke) Conway. Jimmy the Gent was Irish-American and even though DeNiro is part Irish himself, he doesn't look like a typical Irish-American. Burke was also a tall and imposing man, unlike DeNiro and he always chomped on a cigar. Doesn't help that DeNiro also has that unmistakable Italian-American drawl: "Wats da madda wit u?"Pesci is just incredible and a delight to watch, despite playing a very unsympathetic character. Liotta fits his part perfectly as well and what I liked here is that they show his corruption by the mob world that embraced him in the beginning. If he had been shown as just some innocent naive sweet guy, it wouldn't look authentic, would it? Several scenes have since become classics, deservedly so. The "Shinebox scene" aka Billy Batts scene is perhaps the most unforgettable, but also the "Funny Guy scene". Elizabeth Bracco, even though not my favorite actress, offers a strong supporting role as mrs. Henry Hill, the headstrong and hot tempered Karen. Paul Sorvino is also marvelous in his somewhat restricted but pivotal part as Henry's close friend and first mentor Paulie Cicero. Frank Sivero from "Godfather II" is a welcome sight and his character is like a counterpart to Pesci's, a silent and unintentionally humorous sidekick.Scorsese scored big with this big screen adaptation of one of the most intriguing real-life mafia stories. This remains one of his crowning achievements.

I watched "Hot Fuzz" before this movie. Watching "Hot Fuzz" made me want to see this movie really bad. I loved "Hot Fuzz"'s original style of humor (British comedy !!!) and its great acting, along with intricate plot. The camera work from Wright was different from any American films I've ever seen and made the film much more comedic and hilarious, and not stuck in 'one situation.' Hot Fuzz was one of my favorite movies of 2007. But when I watched "shaun of the dead" I was not laughing, and the plot did not get me involved in the movie either. The jokes were lack-luster compared to "Hot Fuzz". Much of the comedy doesn't fit in. The acting is what got me through the movie, the expressions on the main character (Shaun)'s face actually had me laughing more than the jokes themselves. Watch this movie for the acting, not the jokes and plot/acting (there really is not a plot) but if you don't like this movie watch "Hot Fuzz", you'll definitely be laughing at that.

This was a significant disappointment from Sonnenfeld who seems to have been steadily improving as a director since his underwhelming Addams Family debut (there are those of us who rather wish he'd remained a director of photography).I can't quite imagine how this wrong-headed mostrosity got off the ground although I can imagine the studio light being stuck on green where Will Smith is concerned. But this? This? Who ever thought that this was a good idea for a summer movie? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with it like at the most basic level, the idea is rotten, like the first conception of the project was rooted in some bizarre temporary insanity, the conclusion perhaps that Will Smith is all a movie needs to be a smash.This is the most cynical and contrived form of film-making, the packaging of elements to excite a broad demographic, the synergistic Burger King tie-ins, music videos etc for maximum market coverage. But what is centrally lacking here is the movie itself. It is a dismal spiritless mess, devoid of any chemistry between its leading characters, an entirely unnecessary female character (Salma Hayek in an awesomely thankless part) and an utterly rubbishy villain (Kenneth Branaugh not nearly as funny as he seems to think he is).Of course the actors cannot be blamed. They are only actors for Christ's sake. What really counts in a deal like this is the script and Wild Wild West simply did not appear to have one. The plot was utterly incidental, a routine and tiresome paper chase across the old west to find a bad guy with a ridiculous bad guy world domination plan. This would be fine if the movie dispensed with plot and left Smith and Kline centre stage with a huge quantity of electrifying witty banter, but it doesn't. Instead they are given swathes of plot-related dialogue as though we were actually supposed to be interested. In the whole film, I don't think I saw one decent line of dialogue, not a single solitary spark of wit. No clever wordplay, nothing in fact that could justifiably be called comedy writing. Not even any of Will Smith's patented verbal clowning. Just talk and pulling silly faces.An embarrassment for everybody concerned, especially Kline who really aught to know better by now. The only person who comes out of this with dignity intact is director of photography Michael Ballhaus, who makes the desert look like a surrealist painting, as though John Ford and Rene Magritte had conceived a child in a crazy threesome with Alexandro Jodorowsky.Otherwise, I want my money back. I feel cheated. I want to see something enchanting that makes me fall in love with movies all over again, not this sorry self indulgence. Worse even than Star Wars.

The movie 8 1/2 is an Italian film made in 1963 and directed by Federico Fellini. the plot revolves around a Italian director named Guido who is at a spa trying to get over a small ailment and while there he is trying to prepare for the next movie he is supposed to make. 8 1/2 is loosely based on the life of Fellini himself and his difficulties in making a film which resulted in the creation of 8 1/2 instead of the film he was going to make at first, to put it in a nutshell 8 1/2 is about the making of 8 1/2 if you get what i mean. The movie does not do much on the level of plot and is more concerned with having strong characterization for the whole cast which it does quite well .The most interesting part of the movie for me are the dream sequences where Guido tries to work what he is going through at the moment. If you like this film i would also recommend 9 and Brazil by Terry Gilliam.

Jack Reacher - I had been persuaded for a thousand times to take a look upon this movie. Of course, knowing Mr. Cruise as the leading actor, it's certainly not just an ordinary film. Plus, it was adapted by the One Shot book. Quite a masterpiece. What I love the most regarding this movie is, the puzzles and the intelligent mind of the investigator, Mr. Jack Reacher played by the man of Mission Impossible, Tom Cruise. I was looking forward for every moves and steps taken by Jack to be impressed. I think they did pretty well. The element of surprises was there but not enough. The time passed for more than two hours was spent worthily, but the plot just after the entire puzzles solved, which also involves the hunting of the main culprit was a little bit inadequate. Even the end itself wasn't good enough. It was worth for 3 and a half. Should be very recommended to be watched, but unfortunately, wasn't good enough for the satisfaction.

The Shawshank Redemption was a film that I have heard so much about. Many of my friends have hailed it as their favorite film and one of the greatest films ever made. Now, being someone who isn't easily pleased; I went into The Shawshank Redemption with reservations. Coming out of the film, I realized that it made me feel warm. I know that's a weird saying but it's a comfort film. A lot of people love it because it leaves you feeling happy and hopeful; not disturbed like Chinatown or frightened like Halloween (1978). Shawshank is sentimental, joyful and has one great ending. Yet, the film feels so "safe"; leading the audience to a bittersweet and somewhat forced conclusion. Overall, The Shawshank Redemption is a good film; it just doesn't take risks. Shawshank feels just fine in its little comfortable cinematic world. If people enjoy that type of film, that's fine; I just think a film that takes more risks (2001: A Space Odyssey or The Tree Of Life) should be deserving of the top spot of the IMDb Top 250.

Darker than LSTSB, in that the unpleasant characters are even more unpleasant and the protagonists are surprisingly unappealing, but it really kicks in with Brad Pitt's astonishing performance and the visual and story dynamics combining with the narrative darkness make this a very powerful experience, one step up and away from LSTSB, and it does not suffer from retread-fatigue..

Great Actors, plenty of funny scenes.. But my interest stopped when it got supernatural.. After that i hated the movie. It was very disappointing. I Though that with this cast. we would get a hell of a movie. but NO. it seriously sucked . Funny but sucked. I would give this movie 1 in 4 to 10 scale. It was seriously funny, but supernatural made it very bad movie.. I recommend this if you like supernaturaland lame comedy.. Otherwise.. i don't recommend this movie at all, because it's going to disappoint those who like great comedies with great cast. ..... .......... ............ .............. ........................ ..................... ................... .......... ..................... ................... ................. ..........

In 29 September 2015, I wrote a review about the Terminator Genysis. Interestingly, I can pretty much copy and paste that review on this movie.I admit, I went to see Clash of the Titans for Sam Worthington, Medusa and Kraken. I saw the original movie but not attached to it. Now I found out, I was the target audience, so all I can get are watching Sam Worthington, Medusa and Kraken, NOTHING ELSE: the Hollywood suits think audience are dumb enough to accept a script below standard as long as there are big budgets on big stars, bigger props and visual effects.The script in T5 is lame, at least the characters' actions have a logic and reasons. After watching the Clash of the Titans in 2010, I was baffled at that time: Wow, Zeus is a rapist by pretending the victim's husband. He sent the thunder to punish the angry husband, but did nothing when the poor woman and baby Perseus fell into the sea. When Perseus grew up, Zeus just showed up and said, "Hi, I am you dad, I have superpower, despite what I did to your mother, even I did nothing to raise you and never contact you before, worship me, son!" Way to go, dad!! Perseus and Andromeda are basically strangers to each other throughout the whole movie. Why the first time she met him, knowing nothing about that humble fisherman at the end of the hall, went forward to give him a drink with sympathy? Have they really known each other then? Nope, there is no connection, bonding, or any relationship between the hero and the princess, the whole adventure of Perseus turned a puppet show without necessity and human emotions. To take a revenge on Hades is neither important nor exciting to audience, alright? Why the team went on the trip without horses? How far could they go on foot in ten days? Even a child can tell that is unrealistic and not practical. Why the team so accepted the existence of Io? She showed up from nowhere but none of the soldiers questioned why a hot woman was following them, and none of them has reaction to her beauty, those soldiers were made of paper or cardboard? Why the two hunters joined the trip? Why Draco was mean to Perseus in the beginning, and later he suddenly turned so kind to teach Perseus sword fighting? Why the big scorpions are so lethal and suddenly turned to be vehicles? Why the creature made of wood came to help them? Why Calibos in his final scene changed his attitude towards Perseus? Why none of the soldiers in the palace protect Andromeda and let her kidnap by the mobs easily? Why Andromeda in her final scene knew her father was dead? Motivations, interactions and emotions of characters, mostly are unconvincing and blank due to the lack of logic and reasons in the script, which made the movie fell into pieces of fake and crap.The worse is, the movie made enough box office despite of bad reviews, so the studio made the worse sequel, the Wrath of Titans; Wow, they do think audiences are too dumb to find out the script they approved, is hollow and bad!Alongside with T5, Pompeii, the Legend of Hercules, it proves that some Hollywood suits take movie making merely a business and figures on spreadsheets.

Most importantly: relax. Take it easy (as the song goes). But do not watch this, if you are easily offended. It really goes out there and language wise, it does not only cross the line, it catapults over it, with a vicious grin on its face. If you know you can't handle that, better save your money and time.For those familiar with the original (it's been too long since I last saw it), there are a few throwbacks, most of which surely can be read here. They are nice and as "tasteful" as they can be expected to be in a movie, that really takes no prisoners. And I only watched the version that was shown in cinemas. I can only imagine where they probably will go in an extended version (that's surely happening, right? If not at least many deleted scenes and outtakes, with more "fun" - for those who liked it). Also many jokes throughout the credits, that will either delight you or annoy you more - depending on how you liked the movie

I felt that thirteen was breathtaking; it hits the audience with the harsh reality & brutal, raw emotion that many teens have to live with today.I am only 17 myself, but when I saw this film, a lump formed in my through at the imagery, fantastic film work & simply incredible acting that brought the situation so to life that I felt I was there.'Thirteen' has been criticised by many for the supposed 'cliched story line' or 'lack of acting skills'. Quite simply, this is not the case.'Thirteen' tests the boundaries of what an audience sees on the screen. It opens their eyes, allowing them to see beyond their own comfortable lives into only one cruel but true situation that faces teens today.So many teenagers turn to drugs, self harm or generally just self destruction & it is becoming an ever increasing problem among them. People around the world need to realise that this is an issue today that can't be brushed under the bed & needs to be assessed & dealt with before too many teens are lost to a world of despair, self loathing & dissaray.'Thirteen' portrays this in a beautiful but shocking way that cannot be ignored. Hopefully, those who see this film will not misunderstand some of the finer points of the plot *SPOILER* such as when Tracy's (Evan Rachel Wood) mother (Holly Hunter) finally boils over at the sight of a pair of underwear she's supposedly bought. In reality, Tracy has been shoplifting & this is the point when Holly Hunter begins to realise that.This heart wrenching story should be seen by everyone, regardless of their culture or background. These kids need help & they can't do it alone. 'Thirteen' is just one step to making people realise that.

Maybe it was that I went to the opening day at the Seattle Cinerama. Or maybe it was the digital projector. Or maybe just maybe it was the 100s of die-hard star wars fans that I saw this move with. But, it was the most fun I have ever had at a movie theater. Now I have never been a big fan of the star wars movies. I watched them and I liked them but it never went beyond that. But, I could feel the excitement in the theater waiting for the movie to start. and I couldn't help it I was starting to get excited as well. The roar of the cheers as the opening credits played. And, It didn't stop there it just got better. People stood up and cheered as yoda drew his light saber. Absolutely this was a movie to see in the theater and if you waited till it came out on dvd/vhs...you missed out.

If is what I thought of the movie.When I heard it was in subtitles I was saying to myself "OH CRAP!" But I seen it anyways. You forget that you are reading the subtitles because there was always a part that made the movie interesting. The Lybrinth isn't really a Lybrinth. Its more like a temple in a Zelda game. Actolly, the movie is exactly like a Zelda game. There are only a couple monsters and you only see them for a few. The chase scene is short. And one part a girl is getting chased through the labyrinth, what does that sound like? OH YEAH! The Shining! Most of the movie was about World War 2, and the movie had a lot of the main people dieing. I wont tell who though! Its sad, violent, and interesting. AND NOT FOR KIDS!!! Lol, so see the movie!

With a dangerously corny title, and a few lines which ram home the central metaphor just a little too strongly, it would be easy to hate this film. Trouble is, it's just too damn good. Sure, the story unfolds with an easy predictability, and it's as least as emotionally manipulative as any other terminal illness film. But as the patient declines, and his relationships recover, it's the three leads who defeat your cynicism and manage to keep this high-risk weepy afloat. Kline is perfectly unsentimental in a role which, on paper, must have been crying out for Kevin Spacey or Harrison Ford. But in the scenes that really mattered, Kline had me thanking God that neither of them got his part. Kristin Scott Thomas has never been more convincing. And Hayden Christensen proves that his performance in 'Episode II' was, like most of that movie, an aberration for which we can blame George Lucas. (Christensen had me crying in both films – but for entirely different reasons.) This is easily the best thing Irwin Winkler has directed, and Mark Andrus' script, for my money, beats his mostly irritating 'As Good As It Gets' hands down.