Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

"Adonis Johnson" (Michael B. Jordon) is a young man who harbors a secret that has tormented him his entire life. This anger and bitterness has led him into one violent episode after another and because of that he has turned to boxing to vent his rage. Finally, after winning his 15th consecutive fight in Tijuana he decides to focus all of his effort into the sport and tries to gain membership at a local Los Angeles gym. Unfortunately, the word is out on him and he is refused admission. So left with few other opportunities he decides to travel to Philadelphia to ask a favor of the man his father knew only too well—Rocky Balboa. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that it definitely had its exciting moments and deserves a place in the "Rocky" legacy. On the other hand, it also had some flaws as well. For example, it follows almost the exact same format as the first "Rocky" movie from start to finish. Likewise, there were a couple of scenes which were simply too obvious to be believed. But having said all of that, this movie was still entertaining in its own right and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

I have watched Her, directed by Spike Jonze recently. I chose to watch this film coz I have watched his previous work Being John Malkovich, which is a little bit weird but full of surprises. My first impression of the film was "wow, what a story!" I was totally moved by the acting of Joaquin Phoenix and of course Scarlett's sexy voice. The movie is actually about a lonely man falls in love with his operating system with a female voice. I remember the part when Theodore had sex with Samantha, this plot is totally innovative and exciting for the audience, and the whole movie interprets the relationship between people as technology gets more advanced is so precise. For what I see, the movie tries to bring out the idea that we have to have faith in finding love, love is everywhere, even 'system' like Samantha has her own feeling and dares to find her true love through communicating with different 'humans'. On the whole, the film really surprised me in terms of storyline and the whole new interpretation of relationship.

Oh my god! It is truly awful. I suspected from the shorts that I wouldn't like it but I thought I would give it a crack on DVD. I want my 3 hours and $6 back.The film is just a string of clichés presented one after the other. Clichéd characters, clichéd scenes, even a clichéd soundtrack.Jackman plays a clichéd tough drover guy who predictably becomes sensitive, Kidman plays a clichéd posh English Lady who predictably ends up mucking in, there's a clichéd drunk who predictably becomes sober, clichéd Aborigines with magic powers.There is not one redeeming scene. There's a clichéd bulls running towards a cliff scene. A clichéd bar room fight. The scene where they are dancing in the streets of Darwin because it is raining is just embarrassing.And Lurmann you arrogant ****, calling your sh1te film 'Australia' as though it somehow defines our country is a disgrace. It's like if Pearl Harbour had been named America. I'm sure stupid Americans will lap up this ridiculous collection of pre-school images with its simplistic political messages - but if you have an IQ over 85 or spent more than a month in Australia AVOID THIS FILM!

POSSIBLE SPOILERS! I am a big science-fiction and Asimov fan. I was watching this film and asking myself - would Isaac Asimov have liked it? On one hand there is too little of Asimov's complex dilemmas that turns into screen. Little of the full world that one's imagination as a reader opens when you read Asimov's stories and novels makes it to the screen - or better said it's just a small fraction of this world viewed through the eyes of the script-writer and director. You are much less intellectually challenged by watching this film then by reading the books.On the other hand, this is still a glimpse into Asimov's world. The robotics law theme is taken into saying something about a menacing word where robots try to become the ruling power because 'they know better' then humans what's good for humanity. This does look like an asimovsque theme, despite the commercial treatment that it gets from the director. Some of the special effects are spectacular and pretty well done, although the inflation of special effects on the screen in the last years in action and comics inspired movies creates a competition hard to match. The robots behavior is very well rendered on the screen, and it's worth pointing that there is even a robot artist involved - Oana Bogdan, whose hand is behind many of the successful movies of this type. Smith is Smith, he is already more a star than an actor, and plays himself more than the character. There is a risk in this if crowds get tired, but that is his business.I do not believe that Asimov would have denied this film. It's good robot theme entertainment and this is not too little. I gave this movie a 7 out of 10 on my personal scale, and I am waiting for the real great film inspired by Asimov to come sometimes in the future.

Nothing new here first was the last man on earth with Vincent Price and then omega man with Charleston Heston.cgi was a joke could have used animation and got same effect.I think it should be mandatory for the original movies to come up on the bottom of the page when a movie plot line is unoriginal so the new generations can check out the older and usually better version or versions of a movie.For example James Cameron got the idea for Titanic when watching the movie it happened one night, so that should be on the bottom of the page for suggested movies to view.We all know how much of late that Camerons career is propelled more and mor by cgi and plots like native amricans in space i.e. Avatar.Yes I am one with the land and you can't take it.

Just in points my views on this film: 1) It is not a true children film. I was fooled by the cover and the fact of "dancing and singing animated penguins" as well. No, this movie is far more. Kids might enjoy the cute animation and all sorts of flashy-stuff, but be prepared, that not necessarily.2) If you see propaganda and conspiracy everywhere, this movie will set you off. If you can take things more lightly, do watch.3) I loved this film. I take points down to 7, because so many - me too - are fooled by the covers and presentation of the film, that we wait to see something Ice Age or Madagascar - like, but no. This film is much more, something different.4) If you like to see movies with a moral message, something that is more than just screaming and shouting, than this movie is a must.

Ewan McGregor is a terribly good actor. Not just because of the range and depth of his characters but because he has a sound professional mind that seeks out compelling, totally different projects. For some reason, he is the only blockbuster actor who seems to be allowed to do this. At first glance, The Island is the same as any other Michael Bay film (that is to say, the same as any summer Hollywood blockbuster). The script is by no means unpredictable (possibly because entire pages are borrowed from much loved classics and sleeper hits alike) and the action by no means a small portion, nor un-violent.But let's face it, we see Bay's name and expect this. And going in with this expectation you are pleasantly surprised. Yes the storyline is so chunky there could be adverts between set pieces, but this is perfect for pausing to get another beer! Yes Scarlett looks good and says nothing worth hearing, but why else did we buy this DVD? And yes, the action is so manic and ludicrous we are left gormless-ly appreciating big explosions without considering they may have caused innocent deaths of minor characters but hey, it's just a film and, damn, those explosions are big.Its fun, and yes at the end maybe a part of your brain is considering the work of a very naughty Merrick (captain fabulous Sean Bean) and how we would rather a maniac like that never get a chance to allow life to imitate art. But mostly we are remembering the explosions and motorbikes.Once you've looked past Scarlett's tight tops and cringed at the frankly HILARIOUS product placement we see some beautiful scenery and very nice production design.And the actors. Well yes, most phone it in and the characters are very stock but look at the list: Bean, McGregor, Steve Buscemi, Djimon Hounsou. These people are at most peoples best when their work is its worst. You can't help but watch them and be entertained.You can all watch it, no matter what age or relation. Just sit back, watch, laugh, (cry perhaps?) and think. Though not too much.If films were a delightful English Buffet, with Schindler's List a beautifully elegant cream scone at one end and the GodFather films a selection of teas at the other, The Island would still be a super-massive explosive inferno sending shards of the Bone China scattering into the faces of the guests. Enjoy!

I didn't get the point of the movie. It just seems like an old story retold. The Soviets against America. No one else in the world exists outside of America. I'm tired of those stories. The cold war is dead, these characters are uninteresting and boring. Dr.Manhattan, just looks, weird. With his little penis.Aren't there any new stories out there, waiting to be told!! Do we have to see everything ever written, over and over again. Why do studios spend money on films like this. Can't they stop filming, if they can tell the movie sucks part way through making it?? Once they commit the money do they have to spend it all. Use all the money, or we don't give you any more.New ideas, Please!!

First of all, this is a girls movie. It should appeal to adolescent girls more than any others. I really don't see any reason for any one else to like this movie. Perhaps there are more girls that like soccer than I'm aware of. I don't know.The popularity of this movie is inexplicable. Seems like the Indian people really hyped it up for seeing such a venture for the first time. But even I, an American, can see the obvious - that the director has pretty much sold out her culture and homeland for a monetary profit. Thats right. This movie is filled with stereotypes and clichés about Indian immigrants in Britain. Thats how it goes forward, by purely exploiting and amplifying embarrassing stereotypes about Indians. If I were an Indian, I would have disowned this movie and the director.Not only that but this movie also depicts some Britishers as totally ignorant of other cultures. The jokes are stupid and unoriginal. The screenplay is not that bad though. The story is also unoriginal and predictable. This movie is not worth your time and money.

The only alternative to our dependence on machines is devolving to a primitive existence of labor intensive survival, that leaves little time for leisure activities and vanity devices like Walkman and hair driers.So in the future when our sophisticated, high-tech indulgences become self aware and decide we are the plague that infests this planet, all Hell breaks loose. This is not an original Sci-Fi scenario but it is one ready made for the Reagan era (SDI) and our periodic pondering of industrial and technological "advancements".This was a modest budget sleeper that awakened movie goers with its dark palette of stylized violence and intense, non-stop action and pacing. It revved them up with a screen filled with loud machines, dark cityscapes, seedy motels, and an air of impending doom. The intensity only pauses long enough for the virgin Father (a modern twist) to plant the seed of the "Savior".This has all the elements of a classic Sci-Fi welded on to a Horror movie chassis that moves like a roller-coaster. It is intelligent and intense, violent with sensitivity, and is humorous and entertaining. This movie was the beginning of a "new wave" and its style and conceits would become classic, unlike that 80"s synth soundtrack that is as dated as Disco. Speaking of time-lines, oh on second thought, let us not.

CONTAINS SPOILERSI shouldn't have been surprised really. Same director as the truly atrocious and plot-hole-filled Skyfall, plus several different screenwriters, a budget and hype-machine in overdrive, and sycophantic reviews from allegedly "professional" film critics. It astounds me how movies like this garner just unabashed gushing praise from critics and moviegoers alike. Please just open your eyes and your brains, for god's sake people! Once again we are given a Bond movie that has been delivered by committee - a story by several different writers, a director with no real understanding of Bond, and Hollywood money-men clearly more interested in making sure all the vast sums of cash that've been spent is on locations, instead of sparing any at all for a decent plot and a shred of realism. Much like Skyfall, this is nothing more than some admittedly gorgeous and well shot locations being used to showcase some very mediocre and often nonsensical action scenes and plodding exposition, that serve no point other than to set up the next location/scene. The plot is toilet-paper thin and it's this that gives rise to my belief that this is the "S0d it, that'll do" Bond movie, because I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Mendes said on a daily basis shooting this piece of junk.You can imagine a production meeting -Production Assistant : "OK, so Bond kills a guy in Mexico at the beginning of the movie. Why does he do it?"Sam Mendes : "OK, how about Dead M leaves him a 5 second video asking him to do it? Yes? No? S0d it, that'll do!"It's all very reminiscent of how in Skyfall Bond needs to find the guy who shot him with the depleted uranium round - the guy who was apparently a "ghost" with no known country of origin. Pretty fortunate then that London not only knew he was going to be in Hong Kong the next day, but even what flight he was arriving on! How very handy.I said this about Skyfall and I say it again for Spectre, but Sam Mendes is a lazy film-maker. The way Bond finds his way from one set-piece to the next has more in common with Scooby-Doo than any real espionage (or heaven forbid, a plot). But then it seems far too many cinema-goers these days just go to watch things going bang, and sadly Hollywood is more than happy to pander to this.The other thing that really irritated me was how unrealistic it all was, despite allegedly maintaining the "grittiness" that was so expertly introduced in Casino Royale. For example, the fight with Hinx on the train resulted in Bond taking a pasting....but not a single cut or bruise afterwards. Contrast that to the superb stairwell fight in Casino Royale and the difference is immense.Other examples of lazy and/or pathetic film making, in no particular order -1) The pathetic "dentist chair" torture device that Blofeld uses on Bond. The first "drill" into his skull was apparently going to "disrupt his sight, hearing and balance" - no effect on Bond at all. The second "drill" was supposed to make him forget the faces of people he knows. Does it work? Nope. A second later Bond is free, still recognising everyone around him, and he can still to run, shoot and kill enemies at a distance without a care in the world. Amusing how at odds this scene was to the highly realistic (and infamous) "nut-whacking" scene in Casino Royale.2) How did Mr White manage to build a secret room in the Tunisian L'Americain hotel with no-one noticing? And why did he do that anyway considering he apparently only went back there once a year? And how did Bond manage to break down the wall of the hotel in the middle of the night, with no-one from the hotel hearing?3) How does Bond know where to go and how does he infiltrate Monica Bellucci's house and be ready to kill the Spectre assassins? Oh and as luck would have it she knows exactly where Spectre meet! Wow, how very fortunate!4) How does Bond instantly find Mr White's chalet hideout, despite having no information other than Q telling him. "He was last sighted in Austria"? I mean, it's not like Austria's very big or anything! The "S0d it, that'll do" mentality in full effect.5) The incredibly lack-lustre car chase in Rome. Gorgeous location but no sense of urgency or danger in the chase at all. Hell, Bond even has time to make a few mobile calls.6) Why make Blofeld Bond's step-brother? Just.....why?7) Why does Blofeld's "meteorite crater lair" completely explode after Bond shoots one simple gauge off the top of a pipe? It's apparently an information collection facility, not a fuel or high-explosives plant but it blows up after one easy shot! Lazy film-making.The list is actually endless.Lastly, I'm just tired of these "you're past it, Bond" story lines. It worked in Goldeneye as Bond had been away from our screens for a decade, so for M to call Brosnan's Bond "a misogynist dinosaur ; a relic of the cold war", was entirely accurate. But then the "Bond's past it" storyline reappears in Skyfall.... oh and then again in Spectre, although it's his whole department at risk this time. Time for new ideas guys!I actually feel really sorry for Daniel Craig as I personally think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made, and I really thought Craig's Bond could be the defining take on the character, but these last two movies represent some of the lowest points in Bond's celluloid career.So in summary - it's marginally better than Skyfall, but it's still the 3rd worst Bond movie of all time. Not impressed at all. S0d it, that'll do.

My expectations were too high after all the hype I've read on this. I hoped to see something that would rival, or at least approach my all-time favorite Western, "Unforgiven." In my opinion, this does not approach the brilliance of that movie. The performances are all very good, and there is clearly an emphasis on witty, stinging dialog throughout the movie. I think this diminished what little tension was present in this movie. Occasionally, Jeff Bridges' character borders on slapstick, particularly when he is drunk. While this may be accurate with the book and the Directors' instruction, for me it had the effect of diluting a movie that in my opinion lacks tension. Also, I felt that Bridges' character and Damon's character had arcs, but I didn't see one in the girl's character. Also, the conclusion felt rushed, and lacked suspense. There was no gradual movement from comedy to the dramatic, just wild swings. For me, the Directors have always had a way of building suspense from very subtle but potent directing. This was clearly lacking in True Grit.

Let me begin by saying that I liked the acting - especially the subtle performance given by Joaquin Phoenix. The ennui, the angst, the soulful stares into blue-tinted cityscapes and, of course, the film's core premise indeed very much do point to the 'not-too-distant- future. It is a future wherein post-modern existentialism catches-up with itself and apparently (an inference drawn from their odd absence in the film) people can't even form emotional relationships with dogs and cats - let alone live people. What I couldn't quite grapple with are the characters. It bothered me that there is a total lack of any indication from any of the main characters they themselves are responsible for the insular condition in which they find themselves: phone sex with a computer OS and dog-humping a refrigerator. As Hamlet would (and, in fact did) say, "That it has come to this.". When becomes so self-engaged and self-absorbed that he / she is unaware of his / her own, solipsisms - eyes that say the only pain is my pain - and then do something about perhaps changing that comprehension of reality, when a person cannot conceive of a love with another human that is, in part compromise through the good time and the bad times and acceptance of the full dimension of the other, then I guess it comes down to what we see in the movie: fornication with a computer program because human relationships simply demand more than any of the significant characters in the film are willing to offer. In fact, they even stoop to jealousy and anger when the OS doesn't constantly stroke their fragile egos. Ayn Rand famously said, "Morality is a code of black and white. When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit." This, she said, points to the virtue of selfishness. I guess even this virtue has a dark side and we see it in this film.Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a selfish, pathetic (and I might add, sartorially handicapped) creature who, because of his own self- sustaining introversion and unwillingness to engage with the world on a 'give-and-take' basis, deserved precisely what he got.

My title sums it up nicely.If you are expecting a science fiction film you are in for a disappointment. There's a spaceship setting with plenty of decent effects but the story is all about a relationship between two people alone on a ship of thousands of people who are in suspended animation. Any scifi going on is utterly accidental and of no importance to the story.The love story is the standard one. Boy gets girl, boy looses girl and finally boy gets girl back. It's been done a million times. It's been done well here though if you are hoping for originality you ought to look elsewhere. If you were hoping for a good scifi film, forget it. If you want a love story it's worth a watch. I've given it a 6 as a love story. If I were to score it purely as a scifi film it'd be lower.

when i saw this movie, i was new to the world of anime. all the anime i had ever seen was sailor moon. i thought it didn't get better than that, and then i saw the greatness that is princess mononoke. the animation is stunning, the story, captivating, the music, beautiful. this movie has it all. granted, the first time i saw it, it was the dubbed version, so i knew i was missing something. i recently bought the dvd, which includes the original japanese language track, with english subtitles. what a difference a language makes. this movie is unbelievable, for anime lovers and novices alike

So many movies today are suffering from 'over-sequelitis' and this latest Harry Potter endeavor is no exception. Sorry if that offends all of you "Huge Fans of the Book and Why It Does or Doesn't Compare to the Movie" amateur critics.In my view, the first one was great, and it's the only one that I have purchased for my DVD collection. The plot was interesting, the effects superior for the times, the main kid characters fresh and funny, the older actors brought seasoned skills to the project and it was just the right mix of all the elements to make it fun and worthwhile to watch. (Although I still don't understand why witches celebrate Christmas!) Subsequent installments left me progressively disinterested until, finally, this last one.....and it is THE last one that I will go to see even if another one is ever produced. I can't fathom someone spending $25. on a book then $8.50 to see the movie version, then trying to figure out how or why one is better or worse than the other, then coming to this venue, or some other, to express some profound pronouncements......of a Harry Potter comparison!!! Personally, I don't care about the books and how the films compare to them. I want to see a movie that can stand on it's own merits and production values, and this one, unfortunately, stands shakily. The kids aren't cute anymore, the plot has evolved beyond interest, there are no new effects added and, in short, it has become a stale, boring snoozefest. One of the few consistent bright spots in ANY of these films has been the older actors. I'm certain that any one of them could make the reading of a deli menu seem like Shakespeare. Rent it on DVD when available and watch it if you've been troubled with insomnia. It will do the trick.

A stop motion animation musical conceived by Tim Burton. Jack Skellington (voice of Chris Sarandon)is the Pumpkin King who plans and runs Halloween each year. It goes well--but he's bored and wants a change. He discovers Christmas and is overjoyed. He wants to run Christmas too but just doesn't realize that Christmas isn't Halloween. Sally (voice of Catherine O'Hara), a stitched together creation, realizes that Jack is wrong and tries to stop him.Bizarre movie (to say the least) but a definite one of a kind. The stop motion animation is beautifully done and some of the visuals are incredibly inventive and effective. Also the songs and music (by Danny Elfman) are lots of fun and perfectly fit the movie. The "Boogie Oggie" number is a highlight. My only problem with this is a problem I have with other Tim Burton films--it's a bit too dark. I know Burton likes it that way, but this is aimed at kids and I can see some of the younger ones easily being scared of this. Still it's tuneful and there's always something to look at. Also it doesn't overstay its welcome at about 75 minutes. I give it an 8.

I'm a sports snob. I strongly believe there's only a handful of truly great sports movies. It's just too difficult for filmmakers to recreate the drama that takes place on the field. So when the Creative Loafers at sportschump.net asked me to review The Blind Side, a sports movie I would never see,starring an actress I really don't like, I was skeptical. But they promised me Jujubees, so I agreed to attend the premiere.I fell into my comfy leather chair at the Cobb Theater Cinebistro in Wesley Chapel, fully expecting to pan everything about the movie. Then a strange thing happened. The film turned out to be pretty good.Blind Side is adapted from Michael Lewis' novel of the same name. Just like the book, the film begins with a narrative of the game in which Lawrence Taylor broke Joe Theismann's leg. According to Lewis, that hit more than any other moment in football history, heightened the need for a strong, left tackle to protect the quarterback's blind side.Enter the Michael Oher story.Oher (Quinton Aaron) is an over-sized, high school kid from Memphis' inner city with no academic records and a crack addict for a mother. He is accepted into a local Christian high school when the football coach recognizes his potential.Early scenes at Wingate Christian High School depict Oher as uncomfortable and intimidated in his new, mostly white surroundings. One teacher describes him as 'a fly in the milk.' Oher never says much, most of his expressions portrayed through mopey, facial gestures. Aaron's performance isn't groundbreaking, unless of course Oher didn't say much in real life. If that's the case, his performance is dead on.After their youngest son (Jae Head) befriends Oher, Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy (Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw), stumble upon Oher one afternoon roaming the streets, avoiding return to his crime-ridden projects. They welcome him into their home to sleep on their sofa for a night, which becomes a week, which ultimately becomes a legal adoption.Despite Oher's poor grades, school administrators find that he excels in one capacity. He scores a 98% in protective instincts on a high school aptitude test.The Tuohy's, a well-to-do, Southern Republican family with a strong allegiance to Ole Miss, hire a private tutor (Kathy Bates) to help Oher with his academic troubles. Once getting good enough grades to make the football team, Oher has trouble adjusting to the brutality of the sport. It's not until Bullock compares protecting his quarterback to the affection he feels for his new family that Oher finally understands his purpose on the field.The word gets out about Oher eventually when a top scout is sent a DVD of his skills. Suddenly, major college coaches flock to recruit him. Sports fans will enjoy cameos from Nick Saban, Tommy Tuberville, Phillip Fulmer, Lou Holtz and Houston Nutt, although LSU fans will cringe seeing Saban wearing purple once again.The only problem is Oher is failing English, which makes him academically ineligible to receive a football scholarship. It's not until McGraw recites "The Charge of the Light Brigade" that Oher learns about courage, honor and ultimately passes another difficult test: his final English essay.Oher decides to enroll at Ole Miss, which draws an NCAA investigation to ensure the Tuohy family did not tamper with his decision. Oher buys into it, then lashes out at Bullock, accusing her of taking him in just to get him to go to their alma mater. A resentful and confused Oher returns to the projects in search of his real mom, then busts up the local gangster's home, a scene which probably warrants the film's PG-13 rating.Little by little, the audience is allowed a peek into Oher's upbringing, not a pretty picture, probably less so in real life. The film features several touching moments such as when the Tuohy's drop Oher off at college or when Bullock confronts Oher's real mother, who can barely remember which man was his biological father.The film has its share of trite, Hollywood moments including McGraw and Bullock's designer marriage in which they never argue, Bullock telling off her country club friends in a moment of racial enlightenment, phoning the football coach from the sidelines to call in plays and Oher getting flagged in his opening game for 'excessive blocking.' Blind Side also glosses over several racial and class stereotypes, careful to equally bash Democrats, rednecks and Southerners. The film also provides several moments of comic relief in the form of McGraw's occasional one-liners that help to break up the film's drama.Without reading Lewis' book or knowing the complete Oher history, one might think the film is overdramatized, until the closing credits which show a sequence of real pictures of Oher being raised by Tuohy family. They remind us that Blind Side is not only based on a true story, it is a true story.Blind Side won't go down in the annals as the greatest sports movie ever made but it does have its moments. It's a touching depiction of what can result when some, give others, a fighting chance.Mo

The world has reached a breaking point with over-population. A pair of Norwegian scientists have figured out a way to not only stop the human race from completely depleting the planet of all its resources, but also to provide a better and more luxurious lifestyle to anyone who chooses to participate in his program of Downsizing. His patients are shrunk to a height of 5 inches and live in an experimental community built just for them. While they are praised for their efforts, and communities are built in several areas of the world, only a small fraction of the world actually participate in the program. Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) is a physical therapist living in Omaha with his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig). Like many couples today, they are struggling financially to make ends meet. And, like many couples, they have at least toyed with the idea of Downsizing. At a high school reunion, Paul and Audrey talk to Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis) and his wife Carol (Maribeth Monroe) who have already undergone the irreversible process. They sing the praises of the community and get the Safraneks thinking even more about the idea. But it's not until they are denied a mortgage on a new home that they take the trip to New Mexico and agree to change their lives forever by Downsizing. And that's really all we were told about the movie from the preview. It's an original idea, sort of. Dennis Quaid was shrunken in 1987 in a movie called Innerspace. Two years later, Rick Moranis accidentally shrunk his kids in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. It goes all the way back to 1957 with the film, The Incredible Shrinking Man. But Downsizing looked like a new and different take on the idea of shrinking. The only other thing we really had to go on is that the movie is rated R, and there was absolutely nothing in the preview that even hinted as to why that would be. First, the R rating. There is plenty of full frontal male nudity in the film. It's completely unnecessary and used purely in a medical sense. First, a nude man is pictured to show the before and after effects of Downsizing. Then, a group of men are shown disrobed on tables undergoing the process. Again, it's not used in a sexual way, and there's really no reason we need to see everything they show to get the idea of what's going on. There is also one psychedelic party scene at Paul's neighbor's apartment that involves some drug use and brief nudity. And there are some F-bombs that, again, didn't really need to be in there. However, when there's no real substance to a movie, you tend to resort to things like that just to reel in some audiences. The people responsible for putting together previews really did their job well. I had no idea what this movie was about, except the basic premise, but I was very excited to see what it's all about. And those people deserve a raise because they not only hid any hint of why the movie would be rated R from the previews, they also concealed the fact that there's really no plot or substance behind an otherwise original idea for a story. Paul and his wife Audrey are separated at the Downsizing facility because men and women go through in different areas. When Paul awakes after the procedure, he gets a call from his wife who has changed her mind and leaves him alone in the shrunken world that he cannot come back from. After the divorce, Paul must sell the mansion that his modest earning afforded him in the Downsized world, and he moves into an apartment. He works at a call center and is pretty much miserable. One night, he decides to join his upstairs neighbor Dusan Mirkovic (Christoph Waltz) at one of his lavish parties. The next morning, he meets Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau). She was a protestor in Vietnam who was imprisoned and Downsized against her will. Paul befriends Tran and quickly becomes her errand boy as she cares for those in the "slums" of the Downsized world. Paul and Tran join Dusan on a trip to Norway, the original colony. It is there they are told the methane gases released from the arctic snow caps have reached a level spelling eminent doom for the planet. So they have carved out an underground safe haven where they can live and repopulate. Paul thinks this is finally how his life will have meaning, but changes his mind realizing his love for Tran. They go back home and the movie abruptly ends. There were a couple chuckles throughout the movie, but it felt like watching an amateur comedian bomb on stage, or a magician who's tricks just aren't working. The idea was there, the actors were there, but there was no substance to this confusing, no point, slow-paced, unnecessary downer of a flop. I gave an initial cautious and curious 3.5 Star rating with so little to go on. But the preview for Downsizing certainly fooled us all and that rating will plummet to 1.5 Stars. It was not worth the price of admission in the theatre, I'll most likely never watch it again, even for free on cable, and I'll definitely never own it.

In "Presumed Innocent",Harrison Ford plays deputy prosecutor Rusty Sabich,who has been assigned to investigate the murder of a colleague.the hitch is,he had been sleeping with.he digs a bit deeper into the case than someone wants him to and finds himself charged with her murder.i had had the chance to watch this movie several times over the years and never got around to it.finally,i sat down to watch it.i was not impressed.the movie plods along much too slowly.it is not riveting or even compelling but i suck with it.i will give points for the ending though.it is something i did not expect and would have been pretty decent except they dragged it out long.Harrison Ford was convincing in a dramatic role.Bonnie Bedelia was good as the wife,and Raul Julia was very good as Sabich's defence attorney.as for the movie on a whole,it was disappointing. i wish i could give this movie a better rating,but the best i can do is 4/10

'Les Miserables' is the film adaptation of the theatre adaptation of the novel by Victor Hugo. Directed by Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), it tells the story of Jean Valjean's (Hugh Jackman) – an escaped convict who adopts and raises a child in the middle of revolutionary France.The cast, on paper, is quite impressive; everyone will be a fan of at least one member of this ensemble it is that diverse. Thankfully, the great cast live up to everyone's expectations and do a really great job here. Hugh Jackman does well in this; he acts well, provides an extraordinary amount of emotion in crucial scenes and his singing isn't bad either. Amanda Seyfried did well here too but her character does not have a great amount of screen-time despite being the core of the film. Eddie Redmayne really surprised me here; he gives a truly fantastic performance and it is unfortunate that he does not appear to have had any award recognition for his work. Another surprising performance was that of Aaron Tveit, an actor I was not familiar with until I watched this. Of course, Anne Hathaway steals the show as Fantine. Her great singing and highly emotional scenes instantly win over people who aren't really fans of musicals. Russell Crowe is the only actor here who disappoints; you can't really expect excellent singing from everyone because they are actors, not singers. Russell Crowe obviously struggled to do the two things at once because everyone else manages to bring emotion to their scenes whereas his facial expression does not change at all when singing – I'm sure he would have given an admirable performance here if he did not have to sing but unfortunately he chose a musical in which all dialogue is sung. The endless singing can get on your nerves a little but only when it is not during a huge song piece and they are genuinely just singing bits of dialogue. These moments are few and far between though. It was very brave of Tom Hooper to decide that there should be live singing but it has worked out well and made the film a lot better than it would have been. 'Les Miserables' is almost three hours long but it is not a chore to watch, there is no point where you feel bored or that the plot is moving along slowly. The whole film builds up to a truly fantastic climax that raises everyone's spirits.Overall, this is a highly emotional musical which I think will bring them back into fashion. If they're all as good as Les Mis then I welcome them.

Let me start with the punchline and that is "All you want is here". I am not joking folks this is the movie where you will find whatever you ever liked in any horror movie.....name out few (evil dead, all zombies movies, silent hill and whatever in your mind). Though the plot is quite simple and if you will go to this movie with light mood you will surely like this one. Special effects are good and acting is fair from these folks. In the beginning you will find out this movie is yet another teen horror flick but wait for the bet (i will not spoil the suspense)and you will get so deep in the plot. But few things poorly executed and i am being fair to say that the trend and intellectualism of today's movie's gore. But the whole idea is very good and suspenseful. Its a mix combination of all scary movies and ghost and haunting which i am sure you already seen here and there and like always in the end you will explore the intensity of story and forget/forgive what director missed out on your movie pallet. Go guys if you need some good light sex, suspense, gore, ghost, zombies, mermaids, cobra, blood sucking huge bats........list is very long. I am giving it 8 out of 10 but i bet you will be entertained.

The reason, my young friend, that all of the people you have heard blasting Disney's version of Hunchback is quite simple. The should have named it the boy in the bell tower or something else. When one names a story after a Great Work, and even uses the author's name on it, one SHOULD follow the story line a tiny bit. The same is true of Pocahontas and Hercules. Everyone who has every read any of the Greco-Roman mythology knows that not only was Hera NOT Herc's mom, she hated his guts!!! And as for our pretty little song bird, well...Virginia may well be the most beautiful state in the union, but I can guarantee you that there are NO cliffs like they portrayed in the Tidewater area. And as for the girl herself? Pocahontas was an UGLY 14 year old girl. She did indeed lay her head on John Smith's to save his life but her later years bear as little resemblance to the sequel as the ending of Hunchback bears to Victor Hugo's novel. Disney does a great job of bringing fairy tales to the screen. They should stick to their genre.

The Super Mario Brothers games are still great fun. Admittedly they are light on plot, almost simplistic, but they are imaginative, lots of fun and thrilling with memorable characters and interaction.'Super Mario Bros' did have a good deal of potential, with talented actors like Bob Hoskins, Fiona Shaw, Samantha Mathis and Dennis Hopper on board, and it was always going to be interesting to see whether the film would be able to make an interesting story that didn't have a huge amount of narrative material to work from. Unfortunately, it is a real let down, and was doomed from the start from trying to do too much and from its notoriously troubled behind-the-scenes.Video game/interactive film adaptations have a very dubious record, always giving a sense that video/interactive games don't translate well to film, and 'Super Mario Bros' is not an exception. This said, in general there are far worse films out there, while it misses more than it hits 'Super Mario Bros' has a few good spots. Some of the photography is good. Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo do their best in the lead roles and both do a more than respectable job especially Hoskins. Their chemistry and rapport is enjoyable if at times rather too father and son than brothers. Alan Silvestri's score while in want of more recognisable themes for fans is well-suited for the film and has a nice rousing energy, atmosphere and whimsy. Good song choices too.However, 'Super Mario Bros' has several problems that stop it from being the thrill ride it could have been. The rest of the cast don't really impress that much. Dennis Hopper is always a great pleasure in over-the-top roles, particularly villain ones and when he loses it, and on paper he did seem an ideal choice. The thing is though with a role like Frank Booth in 'Blue Velvet', Hopper was not only over-the-top but also terrifying and the character was interesting, here in 'Super Mario Bros' as King Koopa Hopper is a large piece of unsubtle ham and that's it and there are some points where he's almost subdued, sometimes you expect Hopper to lose his rag and it doesn't really happen. His dialogue also further dumbs down the character, making King Koopa very much a missed opportunity as a villain. Samantha Mathis has some moments of heart and charm but is pretty bland on the whole, while Fiona Shaw at times comes close to out-hamming Hopper. The Goombas are sometimes sort of fun, but sometimes pointless and too goofy.It is a shame really that the film's production troubles come through loud and clear in the film itself. The direction has a very inexperienced and erratic feel, and like the directors had no idea what to do with the film. The same is with the story, granted credit is due for trying to do something with source material that doesn't give them an awful lot to work with and it's very energetic in pace and never dull. Unfortunately, there is the sense that the writers didn't know which direction to go or how to start, with target demographic/audience and what it wanted to be never really clear (despite also being a bad film with many huge problems, 'Street Fighter' at least got that right). 'Super Mario Bros' constantly feels rushed, bloated, over-complicated and like there was too much going on, and further sadly not all of it was necessary or made sense as a result of not being explored enough. Exposition is also garbled, so that it has nothing to do with the games other than a few clumsily inserted references which reeked of trying to squeeze them in when this fact was realised in production.As well as lacking in thrills, as a result of the over-crowded and over-complicated story, there is a lack of fun and imagination. The jokes are too juvenile and too embarrassingly awkward to be any fun, and only succeeds in dumbing down so many of the characters (a huge part as to why King Koopa is lacking as a villain). In fact, the script generally was poor, with childish and sometimes misplaced humour and dialogue that clunks badly. Action is very jagged and stop-start. Apart from in the photography and in a couple of neat effects, the expensive for back then budget is not hugely obvious in the production values, where interference and production troubles are second most obvious after the story. The sets are cluttered, too small in scale and quite drab and lacking in colour or dazzle, the world is never fully immersed and others have said it looks like a cheaper and dumbed down 'Blade Runner' which this reviewer agrees with. A lot of the effects are slapdash even for the early pre-'Jurassic Park' 90s.Overall, has some good assets but, while it is not as horrendous as the universal critical and commercial failure on release and as its reputation suggests, too much of it is lacking for it to be the thrill-ride it had the potential of being with the right execution. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Easily my favorite film of all time, comedy or any other genre!Everything about it is just perfect (maybe they had a few tries to get it right?).I wouldn't get bored if I was stuck watching it again and again every day...I envy people seeing this one for the first time.Every time I watch it my cheeks hurt so much.Bill Murray's Best Movie, and he's made a few good ones.Cheers, Greg.PS: Is tomorrow another day?

Having his characters being put in prison in many of his films, Sylvester Stallone this time has his character, Ray Breslin, specialize in breaking out of jails to find their weak spots. Breslin even co-owns a security firm and wrote a book about it.Alas, as it is with this sort of movies, he gets more than he bargained for when he is inexplicably kidnapped and put in an ultra high-tech, maximum security prison nicknamed "The Tomb". Somewhat ingenious, as each glass-walled cell is elevated on platforms, with a descending probe-like camera watching every move these inmates make. Nor does the sadistic guards and the warden, the charismatic yet ruthless Hobbes (James Caviezel), give them a chance to move, for that matter. So while Breslin's partners try to find him, Breslin gets some unexpected help from fellow prisoner Emil Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger).This is fun. Mikael Håfström's "Escape Plan" - the latest from the promising Swedish filmmaker, details this high concept into a somewhat predictable, but handsomely crafted and undeniably very rousing entertainer. Unlike "The Expendables" which gave a wink too many to the audience at times, "Escape Plan" is the real deal - a true blue, old school '80s - '90s action classic - that somehow found its way to the present day and managed to make two of the biggest stars of that era age for that same amount. Same look, stars and feel - but a different time, era and thematic content. There's even a badass heroic Muslim character (Faran Tahir), and not-so-subtle political ('Blackwater') undertones.Although the two action icons headline the title, this is arguably Stallone's film. As Breslin, Stallone cuts back on the humor and plays his role straight with an undeniably commanding presence, but doesn't go too far as he did in the mediocre "Bullet to the Head" earlier this year. Well, a 67 year old with a jacked physique as a security expert may be pushing it a bit, but I've seen much worse. Besides, he has a moment which I did not expect in a film like this - character development, which was then skirted aside thanks to those wacky guards.Speaking of wacky, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sporting grey hair and a beard, is for the most part hilarious as Rottmayer. While being basically an ascended supporting character, Arnold, with a presence equally as commanding as Stallone's, plays his role with his tongue firmly in cheek, giving foil to Stallone's serious personality and coming up with some of the film's best lines - some of which are in his native German tongue. He should seriously consider a rebirth in comedy once he's done reliving what's left of his action glory - he can be truly hysterical if he wants to (note: "True Lies") - or Austrian/German roles for that matter. The chemistry and banter between Arnold and Sly is excellent as they play each other off very well as they would in real-life (their interviews together are a hoot) and it's fun to see these two friends having a blast on-screen.Where the "Expendables" somewhat missed the mark on their villains (JCVD should have had more screen time), "Escape Plan" hits it right on target. Although portraying a two-dimensional character, Jim Caviezel is terrific as Warden Hobbes, his piercing eyes, calm demeanor and soft- spoken charisma just gives off this extremely strong sense of antagonism and nastiness with whatever word that comes out of his mouth. It's reasonable that we don't have villains like this in the movies any more, but Caviezel shows us why we still need them. This is the villain that "Die Hard 5" should have gotten. I won't be surprised if Caviezel portrays a supervillain in a comic-book movie in the near future.These three take center stage in the elaborately designed facility, where the prison cells resemble transparent Rubik's cubes and a somewhat harsh method of solitary confinement that involves blinding light and strong heat in a claustrophobic metal room. Such is the production design by Barry Chusid ("2012") who should be commended for the prison a life and character of it's own, with its spewing steam and claustrophobic rooms breathing a foreboding sense of dread behind the high tech. The cinematography seems to harken back to the days of yore where fight sequences weren't shot with hand-held cameras, though some of the visual effects are dodgy.The screenplay by Miles Chapman and Arnell Jesko (Jason Keller) is about as direct as it can get - but it paces itself appropriately without rushing or dragging the plot. Though I feel that the duo might have seen one too many an action film while writing the climax, but it's all good. Strangely enough, despite what I've heard from critics, the film has little-to-no one-liners (Arnie's 'vegetarian' quote seems to be the only one). The breakout scenes may be implausible, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, because hey, you can't keep Stallone's characters in jail.Accentuating the intense atmosphere, and what I think makes the film work, is Håfström's strong direction which again focuses more on plot and character rather than action sequences - a feat he has accomplished on his previous thrillers "1408", "Derailed" and "Shanghai" - all with equally perfect major casting. However, Håfström should also be commended for saving the only major action sequence for the final third of the film, creating not only mystery and tension for the first two halves but also a terrific build-up to an explosive, insane and crowd- pleasing climax which sees the two action icons doing what they do best - kick ass. Age be damned.This was a fun ride from start to finish but it's time for their action hero days to end and for their careers to move on to more interesting and grounded stuff. They can't do this forever.

I first saw this movie while at my boyfriend's grandparents house and since I didn't have the authority to simply get up and change the channel I had to suffer through this whole entire movie, and let me tell you, I suffered. Personally, I don't enjoy the genre of action movies as a whole for the most part. The whole car chase, explosions, and demolition concept gets very old, very fast. However, for this movie, that is literally all that happened. It was one gigantic car chase with no reasoning behind it, no character development, no plot, absolutely nothing. I can appreciate that these effects were somewhat hard to create, and I give props to the editors, but this was just overall absolutely horrendous. Sitting down for over an hour to watch this made me feel as if I had lost over half of my brain cells, and may as well have fallen over and started oozing out of my mouth by the time it was finished. Unless you're a person obsessed with watching stuff blow up, or someone who can somehow suffer through this movie even without any plot whatsoever, definitely skip this one; I promise, you will not be missing out on much of anything.

Well I saw the cast & crew screening last night in Hollywood, and the movie surpassed my expectations. The action was great and the scenes were intense at times. I thought the part where the jet exploded was OK, but there were better action scenes. I liked the part when Bruce launched the car at the helicopter. Well all I have to say if you want an action movie an/or you like Die Hard and Bruce then go see the movie. You seeing the movie helps keep the business running. That means the union members get better films to work on. It was a lot of hard work to put this movie together so show some support so it is worth the time and effort we all put into it.Thank you for your continued support.

Crazed and merciless reclusive misanthrope German surgeon Dr. Heiter (a supremely creepy and unnerving performance by Dieter Laser) plans to attach three people together mouth to anus so he can make his own ghastly approximation of a human centipede. Writer/director Tom Six certainly doesn't punk out on the unflinching cruelty, depravity, and perversity of the central premise: He expertly crafts a dark, grim, and nihilistic mood that really gets under the viewer's skin while delivering plenty of squirm-inducing moments and sparing absolutely none of the abject pain, terror, misery, and suffering felt by the hapless recipients of this deplorable endeavor. Indeed, the queasy and uncomfortable atmosphere potently projects a jarring feeling of unblinking sadism and utter hopelessness right to the devastating downbeat end. Worst of all, Heiter carries out his abhorrent experiment simply because he can. In fact, Heiter rates highly as one of the single most cold, chilling, and remorseless villains in modern horror history. In addition, his titular creation is truly grotesque and revolting (watch out for the infamously disgusting "Feed her!" scene!). Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, and Akihiro Kitamura are convincing as Heiter's unwilling and unfortunate patients. Goof de Koning's polished cinematography provides an appropriately stark look. The spare shivery score by Patrick Savage and Holeg Spies does the spine-tingling trick. Special kudos are also in order for the remarkably vile and persuasive make-up f/x. Icky and unpleasant for sure, but still undeniably effective and unsettling just the same.

i absolutely loved this film, and didn't stop crying with laughter all the way through it. i'm so glad that they are making spoofs that are actually funny, which has been the problem with the spoofs of the late 90's mafia, wrongfully accused).The late 90's spoofs have been very disapointing, as they were becoming predictable as for they continuious re making of classic 80's and early 90's spoof ( airplane,spaceballs, hotshots ).the film makings weren't taking the spoof genre into any new direction, everything had been done before. just as i was losing faith the wayans pull off a brillant spoof which has taken the genre in a new directionthe film is very crude, which a lot of people have complained about in pass reviews. personally i find the crude moments new and refreshing. i feel it is because of the crude moments which means this will only be appreciated by a selective audience ( 18-25). the older generation will find it disgraceful, and the children may find it a bit too much. im just glad i fall into the right category.the film makes a mockery of the horror genre, and the puts into light the stupidilty of the late 90's teenage horror flicks. the film ends with a very funny twist which for me puts the icing on the cake!i give this 9 out of 10

James Franco and Bryan Cranston gave a great performance, and while the storyline was relatable, the rest of the story felt like it was stretching reality. It was hard to connect with the characters and left the audience feeling kind of like a fly on the wall. The skeleton of the story was there, but seemed to lack a lot of flesh. Watching the trailers it felt like there should have been a lot more of a story to work with. But nonetheless there was enough of a dynamic to create a movie that one could sit through and enjoy.

After the apes rose up in rebellion and fled San Fransisco, a plague descended on mankind, setting the stage for the inevitable clash of two cultures. With human civilization in decline and ape culture on the rise, it is a fragile and fearful time for all. It would only take a few bad misunderstandings to set off an all-out war between men and apes.That's pretty much what we get in this follow-up to Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It starts off a bit slow, but builds momentum and tension as the two sides of the conflict rub together. By the last act, it becomes a shooting war. It's not quite as tight as the first film, especially since your enjoyment could hinge on whether or not you care for the human and ape characters. However, the film doesn't linger too long on the drama, even though the film is attentive to all sides of the conflict.What matters the most is the story. Not only is is a sequel to Rise of POTA, but it also borrows the plot and ideas of Battle for POTA (which, ultimately, remains the weakest of the franchise thanks to its cheap and dated look, and poor execution of the story). Dawn improves on Battle substantially, if for no other reason than it gives the characters a fresh new life and emotional anchor that audiences can latch onto (specifically, regarding Caesar and his ape tribe; the human characters have their moments, but never really take the spotlight enough to make us care). The story proceeds to underscore the key themes behind the apes' civilization - the moral battle between taking action or enforcing pacifism - and it's a struggle that endures for the entire picture and drives the characters. It all builds up to a moving tale of treachery; the ultimate turn of events mirror the takeovers and oppression of typical human dictators, and the film provides a stark reflection on how the rage of a few unchecked individuals could ruin peace for everyone.This film is crafted with decent photography. Acting is not bad; the ape characters easily steal the show, with Andy Serkis and Toby Kebbell bringing their characters to life marvelously. Gary Oldman is as great as ever, although his role is pretty small. Jason Clarke is okay. Writing is good. This production uses quality sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music seems quaint, but it works.This sequel continues the chronicle of the new POTA saga sublimely, and for anybody who enjoyed Rise, Dawn should satisfy.4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

If it isn't obvious, Disney cashed in on Marvel and now has access to Marvel's titles; I didn't know this movie was a Disney movie until I actually saw the typical short movie – this one featured a dog and his relation with his owner, along with a hunger for greasy food that cannot be satiated. This short movie, was typical of the many that appear before computer animated movies of Disney fame. I won't spoil it; the short movie is too good to spoil – but make sure you see it.The main movie features a young robot genius that insists on using his robot creation skills to a local underground robot battle ring. His brother on the other hand, insists that he uses and develops his skills at a local school for the gifted in technology. That actually happens and the main plot of the movie slowly unfolds. The kid makes friends and figures out just what is going on behind the scenes and how he plays a hand in it all. The movie quickly escalates to what can be expected of a Marvel movie; yet it still manages to maintain that Disney appeal that is only a Disney film. Yes there is a villain, he doesn't die as is strange for Disney film, and even more so there is little by way of a plot as much as there is darker plot created by a madman that a bunch of young kids stumble on – they have one goal and that is to stop him. The rest of the movie focuses on the abilities of the characters – both mental in their normal civilian monikers, as well as their specialized abilities based on the technology that their brains created back at the school.The movie has a fantastic visual style; it looks like a mashup of western animation along with eastern style (anime); the town name of San Fransokyo is a deliberate nod at this facet. There is also a lot of influence based on American culture in this film – if you've seen other movies of this vane, you'll feel right at home with this – I know I did. Clearly what happens in the movie isn't capable in the real world – but it is an animation, what do you expect? Lastly, a note must be made about the facial expressions – they are typical Disney and overly exaggerated – it only makes the movie more enjoyable. I recommend this movie for anyone that wants a super hero comedy in Disney vane without a tragic and/or twisted end as is typical of many comics.Additional Comments: The trailer for this movie did something different – an evil madman is after a young boy and his robot; not exactly an original concept, but it plays out very much like a video game. What a coincidence, just about two years ago, Disney had released another computer animated movie with a video game feel 'Wreck It Ralph'; this movie included (I believe), numerous cameos of other established video game villains, among them 'Dr. Eggman'. This culture reference is further extended to the likes of 'Big Hero 6' which is actually an adaption of a Marvel comic of the same title; some of the references (according to Wikipedia) to specific heroes have been included. Disney in that same article, is having suggested an adaption of that same title into a movie specifically under Disney; some characters didn't make it in – Fox has the rights to those for their X-Men movie series.Originally posted to Orion Age (http://www.orionphysics.com/?p=5508).

Here is a movie about the most dangerous place on earth, and it shows in the movie. If you've ever had the idea to climb Mount Everest, but don't have the money, watch this movie and your mind will change. Let's see what I thought.Synopsis: On the morning of May 10, 1996, climbers from two commercial expeditions start their final ascent toward the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on Earth. With little warning, a violent storm strikes the mountain, engulfing the adventurers in one of the fiercest blizzards ever encountered by man. Challenged by the harshest conditions imaginable, the teams must endure blistering winds and freezing temperatures in an epic battle to survive against nearly impossible odds. Starring: Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Jake Gyllenhaal Director: Baltasar KormakurFirst and foremost, let's just say that I would have given the movie an 8 if the pacing of the movie wasn't so slow to begin with. It didn't start picking up until they started to climb to the summit of the mountain. Even then, the movie was still considerably boring.So, right now you're probably wandering why I gave the movie a 7. Well, even if the story was made up it is still a good story. It's a fight for survival against the greatest enemy known to man: Mother Nature. It is the story of human nature vs. Mother Nature. So, yeah, the story is the main reason.The other reason is because of the acting in the movie. I don't care what anyone says, Jason Clarke is a great actor. Then you add in the likes of Brolin, Gyllenhaal, John Hawkes, Same Worthington, and even Kiera Knightly you have one hell of a cast. There is no doubt about that.I know I didn't talk much about this movie, but give it a chance. It may surprise you.Rating: 7 out of 10

this is a very good film, with some fine acting from johnny depp, christina ricci, also from british actors/actress's miranda richardson and michael gambon. there is a fair amount of gore..but the right amount. tim burton does a fine job, great ghoulish entertainment!

Nine stars out of ten from me is incredibly many. I liked this one, because it was kind of adventurous and interesting.Everything is well built in here, though some details are, but very few (I can't even remember right now what they were?)are not that well built (like always). Fox has done good job, and i like this "Putting-more-money-into-series" style. Filming, acting, effects - it was all very professionally done, and it made me feel like it's the real thing, the Hollywood-feeling. What else have i got to say? I am patiently waiting for the next season, i hope they won't mess it up. Manhunt has begun, i am anxious to see it !

I really loved this show in season 1 and 2. The show started out as a good show in season 1, and got a lot better in season 2 with Deathstroke. Season 2 even had Deadshot and the Suicide Squad, which I loved. There were a lot of Easter eggs for comic book fans, and the show was good for both casual fans and comic book fans. Then came season 3, and things went downhill. It was not all bad. They introduced Ray Palmer (The Atom), and that was cool. But they butchered his character, making him seem like and Iron Man knockoff, giving him a super suit that can fly, and can shoot blasts of whatever they're calling it. What they should have done was give him a suit that ONLY allows him to shrink and be basically Ant-Man (comic book fans know that Ant-Man is an Atom ripoff). But instead, they made him Iron Man who can also shrink. That's number one. Number two is the League of Assassins. While I love Nyssa, using the League takes the show from a borderline Batman ripoff to full on Batman. And then there is "Olicity". Putting Oliver and Felicity together is just fan service to the casual fans who wrote fan fics for "Olicity". And then in Season 4. The big bad that may make me stop watching the show. Killing Laurel. They butchered her character by making her unlikable in season 1, and making her sister the Black Canary instead of her, is an insult to the comics. They wouldn't even give her her actual powers, instead making it into a weak choker necklace that she rarely uses. Then they kill her. Just by stabbing her with an arrow. Killing her off means they should change the name and remove the DC brand, because this is no longer a Green Arrow show. Bottom line: Watch season 1 and 2, maybe parts of season three, since it wasn't all bad. But don't watch season 4. No matter who you are. It's bad writing, and a disservice to the comics.

Mad Max: Fury Road is an outstanding movie with an extremely well developed plot and a terrific cast. There is no other movie truly like it, it may be the fourth film in the Mad Max series, but it is very different to the Mel Gibson versions. It's significantly weirder, filled with tons of action that keep you at the edge of your seat throughout and is beautifully directed by George Miller in what is without a doubt his greatest work to date. I think the film definitely needed to develop Max a bit more. I understand it was taking a different approach to telling the characters story, but for an audience who have not seen the previous movies, it is not very clear that Max is the way he is because of the murder of his wife and daughter, they should seriously consider focusing on this more in the sequel.The cast are all superb here, Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult all play characters that start off not being particularly likable, and as the film progresses you really care for them all and want them to succeed in their journey. Only complicated, somewhat anti-heroic characters like these can only gain support when actors as talented as good as these are portraying them. It is a wild ride from start to finish that always kept me entertained and never slowed down. Action packed, truly unique and well acted, I would recommend Mad Max: Fury Road to all moviegoers. In an apocalyptic wasteland, two rebels team up with the hopes of restoring order. Best Performance: Tom Hardy

The Godfather and it's two successors are my favourite films,because the Mafia isn't only shown as a criminal organization but also a family affair full of emotions,force and weakness,like in the most lives.The playing of all actors is great,the music of Nino Rota provoke always strong feelings in me if I hear it.Also this music is a part of my favourite soundtrack.I saw the three films many many times and they gave me a understanding of Italian or sicilian mentality.I got a lot of sicilian friends and I surprise them always with my knowledge of their manner of living and thinking.I'm not a criminal guy,but I wish some- times we could have in Germany some Robin-Hood-like Godfathers of the special warm Corleone-kind. Because without them the really criminal and brutal subjects (in our special european case:Eastern Gangsters without a feeling for their victims) will win the play. Forget about protection by Police,the family would do it

Last Vegas is one of the best movies I have seen this year. It brought together a cast of veterans that pulled off a funny and touching movie about life and friendship. It also was a refreshing new take on the bachelor party theme that we have seen many times. While there are strong adult themes as you would naturally expect, they are done suggestively, tactfully, and tastefully. If you are tired of cheesy remakes, lame squeals, and movies that the stories are weak and laughs feel forced. Then I highly recommend Last Vegas. You won't be disappointed. In fact this is one of the very few that I would actually go back and see again in a theaters and will absolutely buy when it comes out on DVD.

Story: In the new tech heavy world, this is a good story showing how that the people who never grew up with the tech world could be lost in the world of jobs when they get left behind. Not only this we get to see how a group of misfits can come together to make a team. We see how younger people still think it was OK to treat each other differently because of image or background but as soon as you put that a side people see the real potential in someone. This also encourages people to take a risk that could change their lives forever. On a negative side we get a flimsy romantic angle for Owen Wilson character that doesn't get enough time to shine and plays out like a carbon copy of the 'Wedding Crashers' angle. In the end it really is a film that shows how hard it really is to find out who and what you are meant to be, but with the right people you could find out about yourself. (7/10)Actor ReviewVince Vaughn: Billy a top salesman who along with his partner Nick lose their jobs. He also loses he girlfriend and tries to figure out where to go next in his life and career. He discovers about an internship at Google and along with his partner Nick takes a chance there. He doesn't fit in with the other younger interns but he uses his skills to motivate his team of outcasts to compete and work as a team against the others after a job. Good performance from Vince in a role he will always work in the quick talking man. (8/10)Owen Wilson: Nick partner of Billy who after he loses his job lands a salesman job with his brother in law but reluctantly goes along with Billy's plan at Google. He shines in the position learning the computer skills needed and with the chance meeting with a girl of his dreams Dana he tries to impress her with his new skills. Good performance making a perfect double act with Vince. (8/10)Rose Byrne: Dana the successful Google employee that constantly gets followed by Nick as he tries to get to know her, before she agrees to go on a date. Good performance from Rose, but the role isn't used as much as it should have been. (6/10)Aasif Mandvi: Mr. Chetty the head of the training program who reluctantly accepts Billy & Nick into the program. He takes an instant dislike to them and clearly sees they don't fit in with the rest of the programs. He is strict but he wants the best for the job roles. Good performance showing a good authority figure for the competition. (7/10)Max Minghella: Graham a cocky English intern who thinks he has the job in the bag, he treats his team badly because he thinks he is the best and always trying to put Nick & Billy's team down. Good villain performance but also been there seen that. (6/10)Josh Brener: Lyle the team leader for the misfit team who discovers just as much about himself working with Billy & Nick than the rest of the team. He is still trying to prove his leadership skills and after this experience he has learnt a lot. Good performance playing the typical shy guy with brains. (7/10)Dylan O'Brien, Tiya Sircar, Tobit Raphael: Stuart, Nehe, Yo-Yo the rest of the team who all have difference but come together to work on getting their dream jobs thanks to Billy & Nick's leadership and life skills. All three give performances fitting into their own individual problems and overcoming them. (7/10)Director Review: Shawn Levy – Good direction to create a good comedy about how fast life has changed for different generations with the technology. (8/10)Comedy: Good comedy that has a number of laughs but doesn't go over the top. (7/10)Chemistry: After Wedding Crashers I said Vince and Own had great chemistry and this has continued to show that. (9/10)Settings: Good setting using the Google headquarters for certain scenes. (8/10)Suggestion: I think this will be popular with the comedy fans it does come off funny and charming without being stupid comedy. (Comedy Fans)Best Part: Wilson and Vaughn's chemistryWorst Part: Standard Villain character.Funniest Scene: The first sports event.Believability: The characters could all be real going through these problems, but the final outcome maybe not so. (8/10)Chances of Tears: No (0/10)Chances of Sequel: NoPost Credits Scene: NoOscar Chances: NoBox Office: $93 MillionBudget: $58 MillionRuntime: 1 Hour 59 MinutesTagline: They just can't click with the younger generationOverall: Solid Comedy About ChangeCheck out more reviews at http://moviesreview101.com/

SPOILERS Should tales be constantly remade? It's a tough one. In a Hollywood where remakes are endless, it's a strange feeling to actually see another retelling of a Victorian Children's tale. Unfortunately, just like any remake, what actually is the point? If you want a definitive tale of Robin Hood, you watch Errol Flynn, if you want most of the traditional comedies, you watch the original from the 60s or earlier. As Hollywood gets more and more money obsessed, and apparently writers get more and more lazy, so we get more and more remakes of both classic stories and classic films. At the rate we are going, by 2010 the entire Spencer Tracy back catalogue will have been remade, and truthfully it cannot be long before 70s gangster movies enter the recreation arena. It's one of those annoying facts of life that this happens, but what makes it worse is when the remake is not only pointless, but unbelievably dire.PJ Hogan's "Peter Pan" is yet another take on the age old story of the boy who wouldn't grow up. Featuring a live action cast of youngsters who are barely held together by the magnificent Jason Isaacs as the evil Captain Hook, the film has no soul. It is a dire affair with weak special effects and some truly vomit inducing moments. There is little reason to feel any love for this film.In the Darling children bedroom, Wendy, John and Michael (Rachel Hurd-Wood, Harry Newell and Freddie Popplewell) sleep. When the mysterious flying boy Peter (Jeremy Sumpter) arrives one night, the children are amazed. Taking them far away to the mystical place of Neverland, he introduces them to a whole new world. With pirates, mermaids and Indians, this is a world of wonder and the children are drawn in. Their happiness is not constant however, for around the corner lies Peter's nemesis, the evil Captain James Hook (Isaacs).Let's not be too harsh on the acting of the child cast. Led by the irritating Sumpter, they are mostly awful. Irritating and annoying, they grate on the skin like chickenpox. It is for most however, their first real experience of cinematic life, and like the Harry Potter kids, they deserve time to really show that they have talent.It is never harsh to criticise an adult actor though, but sadly that proves harder than expected here. Out of the novel collection of well known faces involved, the stand out performance in Jason Isaacs. Capturing the menace and despair of Hook perfectly, he rescues the film from being a complete travesty. He snarls, he scratches, he does everything he should, and truthfully he aught to be in pantomime.Away from the actors though, and the film falls apart. With special effects more at home in the 1980s, we have visible strings, we have incredibly bad crocodiles, we even have a Tinkerbell that looks more like a lit flame in a jar. It's a good thing that the story of Pan is meant to be so magical, because the special effects really aren't.The biggest flaw with this film though, and this is hard to get past, is just how pointless it's whole existence actually is. The tale of "Peter Pan" is hardly a new concept and has been dealt with brilliantly before. Disney did a near perfect edition of the tale, and we've had alternatives ever since. So why oh why did PJ Hogan even bother. Trying to capture the magic once more, he'd failed magnificently and done nothing to add to the tale. The whole notion of the film is a joke, and it really shouldn't have got past the drawing board.Why bother to remake an already successful story? Like so many films in recent years, 2003's "Peter Pan" is an unnecessary remake. Badly shot, mostly acted by amateurs, it is a pointless production with little redeeming features. Jason Isaacs might be excellent as Captain Hook, but that really isn't enough to save the film. The special effects are lousy, the whole concept is pointless. Please, stop trying to make unnecessary re-tellings.

I thought this movie was absolutely awful. I was extremely disappointed. I went in to the theater thinking it would be amazing because of who was directing it, and watching it, I was extremely bored. It was not scary at all (I thought it would be, which is why i went to see it) and it was just really boring! The ending (I'm not going to say what happens) was just dumb! I was honestly not happy at all. I thought the acting was done fairly well, but the movie itself was just slow and boring! Plus, the only scary parts that were in the movie were shown in the trailer! So that made it even worse! It was definitely the worst M. Night Shyamalan I've seen. Signs and The Sixth sense were MUCH better.

Oscar Isaac turns in a solid performance all around, showing a range of emotions and giving depth to the much-ignored character of Joseph. Keisha Castle-Hughes, on the other hand, provides a disappointing performance, especially after the high standards she performed as the lead Paikea in "Whale Rider." She may have been trying to portray Mary as serious or pious, but she largely came across as unemotional and bored. Shaun Toub and Hiam Abbass (who actually was born in Nazareth—how cool!) played believable parents to Mary. Shohreh Aghdashloo portrayed a wonderful image of Elizabeth, a kind, compassionate, and righteous woman who helped Mary through her difficult predicament. Ciaran Hinds pulled off a decent balance for the mentally unstable and paranoid King Herod (the Great), showing his vanity, arrogance, and paranoia that his throne would be toppled, even by members of his own family. The Magi were a nice counter to the rest of the film, providing some mild comedy, but without being over the top or being unrealistic. Gaspar's skepticism was an interesting twist, and made his belief at the end all the more meaningful.The movie attempts to stay reverent and authentic at the same time. Jewish customs are represented accurately and respectfully, even small ones. One nice touch was the inclusion of a dove whenever an angel departed or the presence of God was indicated, particularly as one flew over Mary after she tells Gabriel that she would accept God's plan for her to carry Jesus as a particularly representational moment of the Holy Spirit's presence coming over her as it flew by. Even the use of the cave—rather than a wood stable—showed the greater degree of accuracy than most Christmas films. Theologically, the story was compressed, particularly with the arrival of the Magi with the shepherds, to allow for time as well as the traditional images of the Nativity often seen in crèches. The cinematography was spectacular, keeping it soft and earthy, while maintaining the moments of the divine when needed. The only thing that seemed incongruent was the nitty-grittiness of the whole film until the end for the actual Nativity scene, where it suddenly becomes the picturesque Christmas card. The imagery is beautifully shot, but it seems to insert the quintessential Nativity scene—which I suppose is appropriate for a movie called "The Nativity Story"—perhaps to represent this holy moment differently around the bookends of more realistic renditions of their everyday life.Grade: B+

No matter how many times one sits through this Hitchcock classic, Anthony Perkins always manages to surprise you. It is a sensational performance - for which he didn't even get an Oscar nomination - I have no way of knowing how much preparation he dedicated to the creation of Norman Bates, maybe no more than usual, but the details of his performance are astonishing. Never a false move and if you follow the film looking into his eyes, you'll be amazed as I was. The madness and the tenderness, the danger and the cravings. A mamma's boy with hellish implications and yet we see, we feel connected to the human being, we are not horrified by him but of his circumstances. In short, we kind of understand him. That alone puts him miles and miles away from other cinematic monsters. From Richard Attenborough as the real life Christie in "10 Rillington Place" to the hideous, unredeemable Christian Bale in "American Psycho". Here Hitchcock and Herrman create an universe that Anthony Perkins inhabits with the same kind of electricity, nerve and shyness that Norman Bates projects throughout the film. Janet Leigh falls for it if not him. She, like us, sees the boy trying to escape his dutiful son's trap. He is in my list of the 10 most riveting characters ever to be captured on film.

A severely disabled child with extreme behavioural problems is murdered by glory-seekers hired by his father. Understandably, his mother is a little upset. Vengeance ensues... Faithless CGI rendering of the classic tale poses two questions. More than a decade and several billion dollars into the digital era, why can the nerds of Hollywood still not accurately depict human movement or fire? And why is it that our standards of moral decency make it acceptable to show disemboweling, dismembering and gut-clenching cruelty, and yet not the cartoon rendering of a female nipple or a flaccid penis? Baffling questions aside, it's worth seeing. Catch the 3D version at IMAX if you can.

An eloquent narration of a story that is ultimately tragic and repugnant. The viewer is sometimes displaced and never put at ease by awkward humour and unconventional shots.A shortcoming of the movie is the lack of delineation of the male(s) narration and the parallel female viewpoint. The narration of the boys contains flavours of a female's interpretation of events.A thoughtful movie that is recommended.7 out of 10.

I saw the original "Sabrina" before ever seeing the remake. I adored Audrey Hepburn in all of her movies, and this was not an exception. Her comedic timing was perfect. She was completely believable as a young ingenue, and of course, she would not be Audrey Hepburn if she weren't absolutely breakthtaking on screen. But while I enjoyed the original, I have seen it only once, whereas I have seen the remake so many times I have lost count! The 1995 "Sabrina" is a gem of a film. I keep hearing myself describe it as funny, but sometimes I wonder if that's even the right word. That's because except for that rather unexpected burst of laughter from Linus' secretary, which cracks me up EVERY time I get to that part, I have never found myself laughing aloud while watching this movie. But the humor is so cleverly written, it is impossible to ignore just how charming and comical this movie is.The script is wonderfully brought to life by the outstanding cast. Harrison Ford is superb as Linus Larrabee. He plays Linus as a serious and almost ruthless businessman, and yet gains our sympathy as he gradually shows a tender and vulnerable side to Linus' cool exterior. Greg Kinnear is well-cast as Linus' dish of a younger brother, David. True, David is self-centered, careless, and carefree. But Greg Kinnear plays him with utter charm that we understand why Sabrina and women in general are so taken with him. And what of Julia Ormond? Well, I think she was absolutely perfect as Sabrina. If she had felt any trepidation essaying the role that had been so closely identified with an icon like Audrey Hepburn, none of her nerves translated on to the screen. She IS Sabrina. I think it's a wonderful combination of her beauty and acting skills that helped her succeed in this role. The sincerity of her performance makes Sabrina so appealing and completely lovable.The performances of the three leads are complemented by a fine supporting cast made up of John Wood, Nancy Marchand, Dana Ivey, Richard Crenna, and Angie Dickinson. Some of the film's funniest moments involve their characters. And then there is the exquisite soundtrack composed by John Williams. The score is at once dreamy and intoxicating. Two songs that were written for the movie, "(In the) Moonlight" and "How Can I Remember?", are just as memorable and perfectly capture the feelings of romance and longing.Hollywood has made a number of successful romantic movies, and I think "Sabrina" ranks as one of its best. Its charm never wears off. It sweeps you off your feet and makes your heart soar. It is a marvelous, marvelous film!

The seventh instalment in the explosive racing turned heist franchise, which has surprisingly seen more mileage than expected, is finally upon us, a year later than scheduled due to the untimely demise of its lead protagonist, Paul Walker. The film is ultimately a celebration of his memory and his contribution to the long running series, which he launched in 2001.Following their defeat of Owen Shaw and his team, the crew are able to enjoy their reprieve and lead domesticated lives. However, unbeknownst to them, they are now the subject of a crusade led by Shaw's sibling, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), who is seeking retribution for his brother.Given the series' transition from racing to all out vehicular warfare, it is imperative that the action sequences are executed well. Therein lies the film's predominant success. If you thought the plane sequence on the longest runway known to man was a stretch, Furious 7 requires an even greater suspension of disbelief, what with airborne cars leaping across building, off cliffs and from an active aircraft as well.In going overboard with the action, the story is considerably compromised in the process. A paper thin narrative is accompanied by the lack of palpable consequences for the principal characters. Somehow, they always manage to recover from every collision and accident unscathed, which makes proceedings credulous and less realistic. Moreover, the primary cast's vibrant chemistry and exotic locales spanning several countries is a prominent feature as ever. Sadly, Jason Statham is relegated to being a generic nemesis and lacks his customary swagger. The latest chapter also adds new blood in the form of veteran thespian Kurt Russell, Thai action star Tony Jaa, UFC athlete Ronda Rousey and Game of Thrones' Nathalie Emmanuel, all of which feature in glorified cameos.The relentless flurry of action also includes several epic confrontations between certain characters. While the muscle men all lock horns, the pick of the bunch is a brutal altercation between two women, namely Michelle Rodriguez and the aforementioned Rousey. In a testosterone fuelled movie, it is a pleasant surprise that the latter shines through when afforded a larger role. All of the brawls are extremely well choreographed. In a franchise which has always emphasized the significance of family and brotherhood, the final tribute to Paul Walker is particularly poignant. An emotional send-off is matched by a few resonating dialogues, representing a beautiful farewell to the actor.Slick and stylish but devoid of much substance, the series is showing no signs of slowing down. While it won't be the same without Paul Walker, with three more sequels in the pipeline, the sky's the limit.

I remember and like the classic film with Arnold, so I was a bit skeptical about a remake of this and would if live up to the memory of the classic ..... it does not.If you have not seen the old one, this is a very descent movie, lots of action, suspense and twists in the story and what is to be believed for the main character Douglas Quaid and for the audience. I have however seen the old movie or classic, so this is kind of a new way of telling the story, with some modifications, some great new things, something has been kept, but unfortunately also some things are not what they used to be (according to my memory).I did like this film, it has all what a modern day total recall should have, great effects, great scenery, great action and great characters and actors. It did also keep most of what made the classic fresh and interesting at that time and there are few dull moments so the action and pace is great.

Professor Hank Pym developed a world changing technology back in the 80s, a formula that could alter the molecules of a human being in order to make him the size of an insect, but after a personal tragedy and the greediness of a government agency he chose to hide his secrets. Until a former protégé discovers them and tries to sell them to the highest bidder.Pym recruits a professional thief, Scott Lang to steal the formula from the wrong hands, while entrusting him with his powerful suit that could alter warfare.It is an extremely entertaining and fun movie, but beyond that it explores family relations from different angles, beyond the VFX and jokes, there are true emotional parts to this story.The performances were superb, from Michael Douglas to Paul Rudd, to Corey Stoll who delivered one of the best villains of this era.I highly recommend it.

The Dark Knight was probably the only and truly comic book movie this summer that everyone wanted to see , of course their was Hulk and Iron Man and Hellboy but this one was well worth the wait. Giving the tragic death of Heath Ledger I kind of thought that I owed it to him to watch this movie as a means of paying my respect to him. AND boy o boy , Mr Ledger has left a mark on the movie and comic book world that will not be forgotten. Christopher Nolen has shown the world that if you sit down and do your homework then the results will speak for them-selves. The Dark Knight is nothing but pure escapism as we plunge straight back into a world of darkness and now chaos.Christian Bale is just a joy to watch and this time round he seems a lot more relaxed with the Batman character and we are allowed to come into the Batman world. Gary Oldman and Aaron Echkart all were a joy to watch and I was waiting to see how they would the two-face character and I was glad to see he was given a better treatment than Venom . But truly the one the only Joker was the one who runs away with the whole show. Unlike Jack Nicolason this Joker is genuinely creepy and his macabre sense of humour is just not funny even to someone like me! The thing to note about this movie is that we get to see some detective work which also reminds us a bit of CSI , this film is something that keeps in tune in spirit of the comic book and just puts Christian Bale on the map, however in my op-ion I hope Heath Ledger finds some peace because he simply was a fright to watch on the screen. A MUST WATCH !THE DARK KNIGHT - 8.9 OUT OF 10 WHY SO SERIOUS ?

OK. Let me start off by saying I'm from Europe so this movie was not cut in any way. I saw all the "x-rated" sequences that many people in the United States (for example) may not see. OK, then, on with my few lines of comment : As a horror movie this is really the best one I've ever seen. I just want to recommend this to everyone with a very solid stomach. You ARE gonna need it! I consider myself as a hardcore macho guy!=)but still, on my 42 inch plasma, this movie frightened me. I even considered looking away for a few seconds. I guess I would both recommend and WARN people. Don't watch this is if you're just a TAD FRAGILE.. It ain't worth it, cause this movie WILL make an impression ( at least in a dark room with big screen and quality speakers)Thanks. Sorry bout my English.

I said that question several times watching this movie and that was just during the first 15 minutes. When the George (dead eyes, nod, smile nod smile) Clooney clicked his magic heels and the bat skates came out, I was ready to leave. What was joel Poop-maker (you figure it out) thinking? He obviously never understood what Batman was all about. Because of when he said he was tired of the "woe is me, my parents are dead, I must become a dark avenger of the night". Uh... joel, that IS Batman. You don't have to make him morose the whole time, he's not the Punisher. But, he's serious. Somebody should tie joel to a chair and make him watch the animated series over and over until he understands who and what Batman is. I can give you a clue joel, it's not george clooney (find somebody that can act!) and it's not this.

This is a difficult movie to watch because I think that the many messages will resonate with any and everyone. It's important to live our lives for ourselves, not for our parents, not for our spouses and not to let life pass us by. Once we stop we stop dreaming, we stop living. I know that sounds extreme, but this movie has made me reflect on all of the time I've wasted, who I've lived my life for and whether I've left things too long to change. It's far too easy to accept our lot in life and just run out the string in our mediocre and less than satisfying existence until we die. The Wheeler family, April (Kate Winslet) and Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) are a couple that has moved to an "idyllic" small town to live out the "dream" but in reality, no one seems to be able to be true to themselves or to communicate and the dream is shown for what it really is, a nightmare.

Twenty years on, Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction has been released in cinemas, and it looks as mesmeric and mad as ever: callous, insolent, breathtaking. The icy wit, the connoisseur soundtrack, the violence (of which the N-bombs are a part), the extended dialogue riffing, the trance- like unreality, the inspired karmic balance of the heroin scene and the adrenalin scene, the narrative switchbacks that allow John Travolta to finish the film both alive and dead, the spectacle of him being made to dance badly, but also sort of brilliantly … above all else, the sheer direction-less excitement that only Tarantino can conjure. In 1994 it broke over my head like a thunderclap, and in 1990s Britain this touchstone of cool seemed to extend its dangerous influence everywhere: movies, fiction, journalism, media, fashion, restaurants, you name it. Everyone was trying to do irony and incorrectness, but without his brilliance it just looked smug. (The Americans get Tarantino; we get Guy Ritchie and Jeremy Clarkson.) Travolta and Samuel L Jackson play Vincent and Jules, a couple of bantering hit men working for Marsellus (Ving Rhames), who is highly protective of his wife, Mia (Uma Thurman), and about to conclude a payday from a fixed boxing match; Marsellus's fighter, Butch (Bruce Willis), is haunted by a childhood encounter with his late father's best friend (a jaw- dropping cameo from Christopher Walken). Everyone's destiny plays out with that of a couple of freaky stick-up artists, played by Amanda Plummer and Tim Roth. In 1994, all the talk was of former video-store clerk Tarantino's indifference to traditional culture. That patronized his sophisticated cinephilia, and in fact, 20 years on, the writerly influences of Edward Bunker, Elmore Leonard and Jim Thompson seem very prominent. Don DeLillo began the 90s by warning that the US is the only country in the world with funny violence. Maybe Pulp Fiction was the kind of thing he had in mind. Unmissable

At the close of WWII, a young nurse tends to a badly-burned plane crash victim (Ralph Fiennes). His past is shown in flashbacks, revealing an involvement in a fateful love affair.This movie tends to get billed as a great romance, and maybe that is fair. But it also happens to be much more, with Willem Dafoe playing a Canadian spy. Wait, what? So this is a spy thriller, too? Well, not exactly. But Dafoe does the part well, coming off as nasty and jealous. Which, really, suits him rather well. (How would Bruce Willis have done in the same role?)Ralph Fiennes looks good in the burn makeup... could it be this is what helped him land the role of Voldemort? I would not be the least bit surprised.

This movie, or film since it surpasses many other movies, provoked more thought from me than any other movie has. I finished the movie having a temporary new look upon the world. My ideals were questioned, my morals challenged. Ed Norton is incredible. He had to have done hours of research into his part to become the true Neo Nazi. Wonderful film.

I haven't enjoyed a movie this much in a long time. AND I'm a long time fan of the comic books.When you're turning 60 years of comic books into three two-hour movies, you can't stick steadfast to the events and relationships in the comics. You have to make the movies make sense within themselves. And they did.If you're only complaints about the movie are how they differ from they comic books, then I think you have nothing to complain about.If you look closer, they have a lot of connections to the comics under the surface. That crazy girl that has super-speed and can detect mutants who's in Magneto's brotherhood? When I first saw her, I was like that's a really random combination of powers. Then I realized that she's a combination of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the siblings that were in Magneto's original Brotherhood of Evil Mutants in the comics.Yes, Juggernaut wasn't actually a mutant, he got his power from the stone, and yes, he was Prof. X's half-brother in the comics. SO WHAT?!?! If you let that ruin it so that you didn't crack up when he said "I'm the Juggernaut, Bitch!" then you shot yourself in the foot when you came into the movie.If you're still going into ANY movie adaptation of a piece of literature, whether it be novel, graphic novel, or comic book, and expecting it to stick to what you read, you are dumb.

We're all used to seeing photos and footage of Cambridge Prof. Stephen Hawking seated in his wheelchair using a speech-generating device to talk for him. We're also used to hearing him called the world's smartest man thanks to his work on gravitational singularity theorems. But you're probably less familiar with his life story."The Theory of Everything" charts Hawking's life from his days as a student - where he met his first wife Jane - to his rise to international renown as a theoretical physicist. But a major part of this is Hawking's health as he succumbs to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, rendering him immobile. Through thick and thin, Jane did what she could to support him.Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones both perform their roles flawlessly. The movie makes clear that there has always been a human side to this hero of geeks and nerds. It's a great movie, and Redmayne deserved his Oscar win.I like to think that if Prof. Hawking debated a willfully ignorant person, Hawking would have to say only one sentence before the moron's head would fall off in confusion.

Wes Anderson's latest cinematic confection, "The Grand Budapest Hotel," is a quirky, surrealistic comedy set at a mountain resort run by a concierge named M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and a "lobby boy" named Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori), whom M. Gustave has taken under his wings to train in the art of service. Set in a fictional country, the movie begins in 1968, when the Grand Budapest Hotel is just a shadow of its former self, having been allowed to fall into disrepair and currently inhabited by a small contingent of eccentric tenants. One of them is a writer (Tom Wilkinson) who discovers that Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) is now the owner of the once-proud establishment. The elder Mustafa regales him with stories of an earlier time in the hotel's history - the 1930s, in fact - when the palatial inn played host to only the richest and most aristocratic of occupants and guests. Through dual-narrated flashbacks, then, Anderson weaves a smart and cheeky tale of an enduring friendship that triumphs over class division, a tale that combines wit with imagination and social commentary with visual elegance, set against the writer/director's trademarked air of heightened unreality. When he isn't fulfilling his duties as hotel concierge, the foppish M. Gustave, fastidious in manner and with a poetic quote for every occasion, offers his "personal" services exclusively to blond, fabulously wealthy and emotionally insecure dowagers, one of whom bequeaths to him a priceless painting upon her sudden death. This surprising turn-of-events puts him at odds with a veritable army of the deceased woman's outraged relatives. This leads to a stolen art treasure, a false conviction for murder, a daring prison break and a mad race to stay one step ahead of the pursuing authorities, as M. Gustave endeavors to prove his innocence.To enhance the dreamlike nature of the material, the look of the film is marked by whimsical art direction and ultra-stylized framing. Even the dimensions of the screen change with the time period of the story - traditional square for the scenes set in 1932 and widescreen for those that take place in 1968.In addition to the splendid deadpan performances of Fiennes, Abraham and newcomer Revolori in the key roles, the movie provides a veritable sea of familiar faces in supporting and bit parts, many of them members of Anderson's repertory company: Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton and Owen Wilson, among others. "The Grand Budapest Hotel" finds Mr. Anderson in peak form.

Everyone should quit their damn bitching. Reading your horrible reviews was worse than the movie! The movie wasn't even THAT BAD!All you bible thumpers get off your keyboards, this is the new world, where story's are told in a new way. You call the Bible a historic text, yes, a heavily edited historic story book! At least this movie isn't cramming religion down your throat like EVERY OTHER BIBLE MOVIE. If anything this makes it more realistic and believable than the mystical miracles of the bible.This and Noah have put a new edge and view on how i've grown up perceiving the "fairy tales" the bible tells. Remember, STORYBOOK is the key word here. because that's what the bible is. I hope he continues to create more biblical renditions because as of right now he is the best there is out there!None of you know how the story actually happened. The story in the bible is just another story. WHo do you think made the bible? Put all the story's together that happened hundreds of years apart from each other? That's right, past leaders. You don't trust them now, why would you trust them any more back then? You don't think the church is a past leader? Just open your eyes, why do you think the church isn't taxed? Power and control. Don't be a sheep. Be an individual.Enough of this.

This is yet another of those films that draws the dividing line between the pretentious film fan and also a generational one between GenX/GenY and everyone else.As an older Xer I don't buy into the snarky poseur mentality of most of my generation (and those that came after and can't even do that well) and this film is a perfect example of what crap is celebrated as art.The film is a dud - like a bomb that doesn't go off it just lays there - like a bad lover who can't perform. It moves slow, it's ugly to look at, what's-his-name-lead-actor-Brit smirks his way through half of it (you're just waiting for him to crack wise and break character) and this whole predilection Xers and Ys have with the browns and greys and the blah of the 70s aesthetic is showcased in the production design - sigh.Lousy pacing, cartoonish characters, a pedestrian plot, and a simply awful and cheap look to the thing.Watch Zardoz and see what this film wishes it could have even been half of.

I seen this movie for the first time a couple of years ago just by chance on one of the sky movie channels and since must have seen it 100 times.The movie is well written with a lot of black humor scattered about throughout the film. It does try to take itself a little to seriously in places and forgets its a very good and clever action movie and trys to convey a moral message and ask a question about the state of the world and just how right the vengeance of boondock saints actually is. putting this to one side the movie does stir up emotions and i have to admit feeling slightly like buying several big guns and cleaning up my town every time i watch the movie. It affected me enough to get the whole of my back tattooed with an image based on the movie and I'm very proud to say the tattoo can be seen on the official movie site. The film runs in an unusual order that many people compare to Pulp Fiction however it is nothing like you simply see the crime scene before you see what actually happened to cause it this is the best feature of the movie and extremely fun watching agent Smecker trying to work out what the saints had done and who they are. An exceptional movie and well recommended.

All that praise for this movie...while it in my opinion is nothing more than a simple written but very well directed heist movie which cast and style still make this an entertaining enough and certainly watchable movie. It however is a movie with a tad more misses than hits really.Main problem for me was the story. Over and over again it is told in the movie that this is the perfect bank robbery. Quite frankly I really don't see back in the movie why exactly the plan is such a brilliant one. Also the twist at the end left me cold and it was far from satisfying for me. I found the story to be simple and formulaic written. The movie tried to make itself seem more complex and clever but putting some non-linear story lines in the movie but its all not enough to make the story seem more interesting or any more clever. Spike Lee's directing however certainly spiced things up and manged to give the movie still some flair and an excellent 'cool' atmosphere. Nevertheless the movie and its story just didn't hit me as clever, surprising or perfectly solidly written, which made the movie as a whole to me a bit simple although it certainly still was perfectly entertaining to watch."Inside Man" isn't really a movie that allows itself to be put in a corner. It's hard to classify this movie as to what genre it is. As a thriller it isn't tense enough and as a crime movie it isn't clever and tough enough. For most part the movie is mostly entertaining to watch but than again at the same time the movie tries to handle some more serious and delicate matters. Best example of this are of course the racial and discriminating issues, a returning element in Spike Lee movies. The moments felt forced, out of place and totally unneeded. Because this movie doesn't really fit in a genre its hard to known how and with what approach or distance to watch this movie.The cast is impressive, perhaps a bit too. Denzel Washington is perfectly in his element, as yet again a police detective. He seems to be getting with every movie I see him in. Clive Owen isn't as impressive but he is a good actor and he plays his role convincing and 'cool' enough. The movie also has Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer in it but it makes you wonder why. Their roles are small and don't seem significant enough, even though they play an important part in the story. This is mainly because their screen time is too limited and it feels like a huge waste of talent. Jodie Foster normally picks her roles very carefully and it makes me wonder why she ever agreed to be in this movie. Willem Dafoe on the other hand again is a perfect, pleasant and most welcome addition to the star-filled cast.This movie still shows that Spike Lee is a great talented director with a nose for the business. This unfortunately in this case only shows in its style. The movie has some great executed- and almost artistically style-full sequences. It to me was the only reason why this movie still was a good- and entertaining enough movie to watch, for the story and its character left me cold mostly.Simple entertainment. Style-full but not solid.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

It's a great addaptation of a stage musical. The music it self is composed by Stephen Sondheim and it fits the story very well. There is some really good acting done in this movie. Emily Blunt (Golden Globe nomination) did a good job on the baker's wife. But the star of this movie is Meryl Streep (Golden Globe nomination) her acting is great as always and her singing is beautiful and pure! Also a shout out to Christine Baranski as the wicked stepmother, a great role! Chirs Pine as prince charming is a very welcome surprise. He's very funny. Rob Marshall did an amazing directing job! He kept the stage feeling just like he did in Chicago only now in a forrest and not in a theatre. Great movie, great cast, and great music. If you like musicals you will like this one

...if I didn't have a "twist" ending? (SPOILERS, of course. Read no further if you've not seen the film). Perhaps I have a short attention span, but I did have some trouble following the plot at first. My biggest complaint is that a lot of the characters were underdeveloped. Most of the people generally did not have any traits to distinguish themselves from each other. I was rather bored. When I saw this movie I had already heard there was a big "twist". So when people were discussing the identity of this Keyser Soze, I couldn't help but think to myself "hmm... wouldn't it be wild if the cop giving the interrogation was Keyser, or maybe Verbal Kint, or maybe....". You just find yourself going through the ropes imagining wild possibilities, and so when Verbal's leg straightens out and we see his sketched face coming out of the fax machine, it failed to have any impact with me. I'm sure that if I had been unaware that there was some kind of twist in the film, this ending would have hit me a little harder- but I'm skeptical that would have made me admire the preceding 100 minutes much more. I'm sure if I saw this again, I might find other things to appreciate. No doubt, throughout the movie there must have been clever clues to Keyser's identity that I did not pick up on the first time around. But would that make it worth it for me to sit through this again? I'll never know, as I am not willing to spend a couple more hours of my life on this movie. I give it a 5 out of 10.

Fifty Shades of Grey has two main characters: Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). As in most love stories, they belong to two different social classes - the girl being a poor, beautiful student, while the boy is a rich, powerful, handsome billionaire. They meet each other by chance and fall in love. For now you might think that you've seen it hundreds of times and you are definitely right about it. Most things in this movie is so well known and familiar that it bores you. Accordingly, if you continue watching it as another complicated love story, you might walk out of theater or order a cup of coffee to keep yourself awake. What I tried is to look at this story in a different perspective, something alike to Nymphomaniac or even more, Blue Is the Warmest Color (the comparison does not necessarily mean they are equally good). At the end of the day, not many films, at least in Hollywood, talk about BDSM or dominant/submissive sex experience.Having said that, I was very surprised that the film is R rated. And it's not only a rating, it perfectly describes what approach director Sam Taylor-Johnson took while filming it. To shortly say, it could have been much more erotic and as they say, book has lots of it. I will try to talk about the love-story side of Fifty Shades of Grey. We all know it's shitty cause it's very average and not original. By saying that I mean everything, including relationship lineup, dialogues, character development and extremely predictable "twists". Instead, I will focus on Grey's fetish - BDSM. Dornan's character is an absolute cliché of rich playboy - handsome, full of gadgets, self confidence and kindness. But his sexual life is nothing alike of others. The only way he gets sexual satisfaction is pain, pain of other partner who is always submissive. In any world, one can not easily find an absolute submissive person, who is ready to enjoy the physical stab because other person does. So, Christian has to negotiate with Anastasia step by step, tries to talk her into his dangerous game. Miss Steele is ready to try for sake of love. I don't want to spoil anything, if its possible, so I'll just generally tell the idea. The film provokes many thoughts on BDSM: whether it's normal; whether it's naturally born attraction or later formed due to specific life events. Fifty Shades of Grey gives a definite answer, which you might not agree, just like me. But it does give an answer. Another deal-breaker is how another person can accept this sexual behavior and if the denial is really about the pain or humiliation. For Grey, bandaging, spanking, slapping is a form of endearment, a form of loving and the only way to experience orgasm. He means nothing degrading by that. To the contrary, Anastasia perceives it in a different way - the way most of us probably would do. While she sometimes enjoys it, since Christian seems to be very professional/good at it, there is a part of her that feels wrong, as if being submissive has nothing to do with love.As I mentioned above, this film has some similarities with Nymphomaniac, which also talks about masochist sex. But the latter is more sincere and open about it, showing sexual desires more naked and a it is. For me, Trier's film was sometimes too hard to watch, too explicit and very true. While Fifty Shades of Grey demonstrates BDSM in more acceptable way, which I enjoyed to watch. I mean, it maybe something most of us have never experienced, but I have to acknowledge that each sex scene was beautifully shot, perfectly shooting the pleasure of both parties. The biggest complain I have is that it could have been more +18. In it's core, dominant/submissive sex has nothing to do with shame or diffidence and filming this scenes with shyness does not feel frank enough.As for Blue Is the Warmest Color it had more explicit sex scenes that, everyone agrees, was one of the most pleasant scenes in years. So what director Sam Taylor-Johnson could have done is to adopt the same attitude by filming her movie in more "pornish" way that would be equally acceptable. Even though Dakota Johnson is an exact pretty face a girl like Anastasia should be, her performance was far below average. Her tears, drama scenes were somehow irritating. But Jamie Dornan was quite much better, especially in the last sex scene, where he finally gets what he wants and you can see it in every move, emotion and wrinkle on his face.Danny Elfman, who has created some magnificent music for Good Will Hunting, Milk and Big Fish, did nothing special for Fifty Shades of Grey. In fact, at the end of the movie, I remembered none of track played during the film. Only Beyonce's memorable song captured the spirit of film perfectly.Oscar nominee cinematographer Seamus McGarvey did not have much to do here, but he did picture several sex scenes in a very good way, focusing on important parts (!) sometimes, moving through bodies of lead characters and giving glimpse on their faces. It created an impressive motion that kept audience engaged in sexual act, at least, sometimes.In conclusion, if you are looking for groundbreaking, philosophically deep discussions on sexual behavior, Fifty Shades of Grey will disappoint you. If you are going to watch it as a love story, it will disappoint you. But if you try to look at it as a discussion of BDSM and not generally accepted sexual life, it will definitely provoke some controversial thoughts

I loved this film! I went in expecting not to like it but I loved it. The Shakespeare references were overwhelming and funny. Julia Stiles was excellent as Kat Stratford and I was happy to see her returning to the screen after her great performance in "The 60's". Heath Ledger was amazing as Patrick Verona. It was nice to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt all grown up from "Angels in the Outfield" All in all I loved this film and I'm glad that I went to see it again. It just got funnier.

I loved the connection between all the kids, you could really tell they loved what they do. the acting was amazing and so were costumes.

Treasure hunter Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) shows up at his father's doorstep in the middle of the night with a nondescript blonde (Diane Kruger) by his side. Gates (Jon Voight) hasn't seen his son in ages, so naturally he thinks junior is in trouble. More specifically, he assumes Ben has knocked up nondescript blondie and isn't ready for the whole family thing. Old man Gates readily offers to help out with abortion funding. Says nondescript blondie, checking her silhouette with a troubled look on her face: "Do I look pregnant?" It is this moment, and this line, courtesy of Jim Kouf, that Diane Kruger will be remembered for. That being said, she is about as believable as a scientist as Dr. Christmas Jones in "T.W.I.N.E.", but at least Denise Richards looked hot in her desert boots. The rest of the movie is a surprisingly engaging blend of conspiracy thriller, action flic, and road movie. Cage comes across as a nerdy Indiana Jones type, fun to watch on his quest for the Mayflower's lost cargo.

In this era, such films aren't produced with high budgets but in 1931 Fritz Lang did a great job with M. I don't want to say too much about it because every cinema fans should have watched this masterpiece. But I would like to complete some Fritz Lang films because M is really a masterpiece in its' area.Pre-World War II periods are reflected in M perfectly. Inspiring a series killer in Germany, Fritz Lang's M is a good copy of real one and if Peter Kürten who is the inspired real killer and called "Monster of Düsseldorf" had a chance to watch this film before the execution in these years I think he would admire Lang, too. Lang's well designated tension elements make the film "classical". Whistles, sounds, conversations, tags are wonderful. I especially admire the scenes that series killer trying to escape from mafia.Inge Landgut. I examine her and the note is for her: Probably best remembered for playing Elsie Beckmann. Peter Lorre is perfect choice for the role of series killer. The confessions that series killer Hans Beckert made at the end of the film is very good. According to this, Beckert says he was borned to kill. Representative court founded by mafia and representative lawyer found by mafia come face to face amazingly and of course the mother's words: Nothing will bring my daughter.M can't be compared any films whether in its' sector or not. I don't forget this and I'll watch whenever I have a chance for second.

The movie is not the typical Jim Carrey comedy. It is a light drama with humor. It satisfies any reason you have as to why do you watch a movie...for enjoyment, entertainment, to make you think, to draw a moral lesson. Yes, some of the inspiring thoughts of the movie were : "You have to conquer your fears." and "Never give up."Jim Carrey gave justice in his portrayal of the lead character. Actually, I haven't seen any write up about this but personally, I think Truman was a variation of "true human", the image Christof wants Truman to be. And his last name was taken from the city in California that is near Hollywood.Anyway, the concept is unique. But, the thought of Truman was being watched by millions of viewers and the crew in Christof's world, we as the movie viewers watch Truman also. Just like Truman's audience, I, myself, became attached to his character as I shed a tear in the movie's ending. I became involved in the storyline that when I went out of the movie house, I feel like I was being watched myself.But then, after the show, I went out to "find more other things to watch."

Cliffhanger is an action-adventure thriller that features Sylvester Stallone and John Lithgow together with Michael Rooker,Janine Turner,Leon Robinson,Paul Winfield and Ralph Waite.Stallone plays Gabe Walker, a member of a mountain-climbing rescue team who is haunted by an incident from his past when he couldn't save the girlfriend of his best friend, Hal Tucker,from falling to her death.It was directed by Renny Harlin.Gabe has left mountain-climbing rescue work and has set up business in Denver. He returns to the mountain rescue office to persuade his lover, Jessie to quit and come back to Denver with him. While he is begging Jessie to head out to Denver, things are happening in the skies overhead. A gang of professional crooks headed by psychotic Eric Qualen has hijacked a U.S. Treasury plane carrying millions of dollars. But the plane crashes, and the bad guys find themselves stranded on top of a mountain with the money that was placed into three cases scattered around the wreckage and with no way to get down off the pinnacle to retrieve the cases. They put in a phony distress call that is received by the mountain rescue team. Gabe agrees to take part in one last rescue attempt, and they head up to help rescue the thieves. But Qualen has plans for the rescuers to force them to climb through the dangerous snow-covered peaks to find the three suitcases of cash.Cliffhanger is a device to entertain us, and it works, especially during those moments when Stallone is hanging by his fingernails over a three- mile fall, and the bad guys are stomping on him.Also,it is a big-scale action adventure with plenty of blood and blasts. It resembles some Shakespeare plays only in that by the end of the story almost all the characters are laying in pools of blood.Finally,it may go down in screen history as the nail in the coffin of the Die Hard sub-genre, in which all the key elements of that blockbuster have been recycled to the point of self-parody.

.. the not so family-friendly violence.. the lack of Jar-Jar .. the horrific, dark moods.. the long-lasting, tranquil landscape sequences.. This time, George Lucas has let the CG-people take care of the details in stead of the plot! Excellent.. and how many details there are! Good work, CG-people!! Your work is in the scenes, and when you do that well - and only do that - it's so awesome, nothing short of art!OK; this film has it's flaws (like all the SW-movies actually), for instance, C-3PO's hilarously neurotic character is exaggerated - to the point where it's far too much.. why, I don't know. Lucas seemed more restrictive in the cutting room on the earlier films.Yoda is also portrayed on the boundaries of what might be considered disrespectful, but it actually works so well! I mean, he is (one of) the most powerful jedi. Everyone on the premiere started applauding Yoda, and I did too. Excellent stuff! :) I'm going to watch THAT scene again..But there are other flaws - for instance, the romantic scenes with Anakin & Amydala were far, faar too cliched & romantic! I started laughing :D But it worked. The robot factory - where fast paced action timed between menacing machines, was attempted - failed a bit and became VERY "computergame"-like.Anakin's transition towards evil is very well handled, both scriptwise and actorwise. Also, the annoying kid from SW1 is given new depth as we see he wasn't supposed to be simply "the cool kid" - moreover arrogant and ambitious.Anyway: the film doesn't have the "hurried" feel that the Phantom Menace had. It had a lot of good stuff in stead. Lots of moods! Good moods and dark moods. Excellent! Good action scenes. REAL good ones.Another film like SW1, and the series would have been screwed. I would then have had to ignore the I-II-III's and just go for the originals. However, this saves it all. It really does! Woohooo! Good work, Lucas! Get it even better for the next one, and it'll be the best in the series (hoping for all 9 to be made.. :)~ 9/10

This move is well over 2 hours long but it flows so well that at the end you are in eager anticipation of the next instalment. Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Hemsworth are convincing as Katnis and Peeta. In a new Survivor like setting,the two youngsters are once forced to struggle against the Capitol's interest in dominating the Districts. As this film progresses so does the interpersonal relationship between the two. The subtlety of the message is there, but the message that this film conveys is clear all the same. We are all being distracted from real life and real problems by the media of television and film. The film does present it in an interesting way though because in this story the ones who are distracting themselves are the rich and powerful ones. Issues of social stratification are also brought to light in the film, as the script shows us that no matter what their wealth status or race is people are more alike than we are indoctrinated to believe. Aside from this the action and special effects are thrilling, and the story provides some very tense moments. An important film I think because it asks many people to examine how much of their life they devote to happens on the screen.

This film is in my top five favorite films. What more can you want out of a movie??? Sure you have the triangle romance that's good OK that's good. But you also have WAR, GANGSTERS, COWBOYS, NATIVE Americans, BOTTLEGGING, MURDER. I mean people come-on! In my thirty something years I have NEVER seen a movie that had all of these elements in the same film. This film should have been nominated for so much more. The acting was superb so I don't understand how someone could say Anthony Hopkins didn't do his thing. I was a film major in college and I can truthfully say this film has many great elements and a great story. The cinematography alone and suspense is enough to keep you interested.

A perfect motion picture. It's not about a serial killer, it's about a mysterious man who gets involved into a crime that makes him to a (very brutal) serial killer. This guy seems abstracted, somewhat even retarded, but Ryan Gosling plays him condignly human. These moments when he stares into blankness are stunning, just because of the beautiful cinematography and the awesome soundtrack (this is one of the best movie scores of all time, for what it's worth). Drive captivates you ab initio and doesn't even stop after the movie is finished. It makes you think about beguilement and the craziness of people and that gets exhibited radically explicit. But on the other hand the movie isn't specialized on character sketches or telling long rigmaroles, it only shows you what is absolutely necessary. Oscar nominations for cinematography, production design, score, original song and maybe also editing would have been just. And not to forget the acting, which is also great and absolutely fits the film. I personally love Drive and I can't find anything that disappoints me with this movie.

This movie expertly illustrates a different point of view than most are likely used to. Politics are largely neglected in this film, as opposed to the exclusively political conflicts depicted in Lincoln and other such films documenting the Civil War Era. Instead,the struggles and tribulations of an average confederate soldier brings the atrocities of the war, and its impact on the entire south into context for viewers. Viewers are able to, in a very emotional way, experience the horror of battle, as well as the effect on all walks of life in the south. The film details several battles between the Union and Confederate forces, all of which are barbaric bloody brawls. It brings to light the desperation of the soldiers to survive, as well as the near-fervor for their own cause. The way in which southern soldiers were shown to fight reflects the honor and the warrior mentality that the south had at the time, which bolstered its efforts against the Union. Historical accuracy seems rather evident. Conflict existed all across the South during this time period, and it seems accurate that there would be Union Soldiers desperate enough to raid entire towns, steal livestock and supplies, and terrorize locals, seeking food. A mother is encountered by Inman, who misses her husband enough that she would lie with him to recall her husband's presence. It is safe to assume that the husband was also drawn away by the war. The conflict affects every person in the country, and this film makes the situation heartfelt, and as evidently volatile and conflict-ridden as it must have been to actually experience it. The choice to steer clear of political dealings, and focus solely on the domestic effects and tolls that the war took, serves this film well, and it engages viewers, as well as drawing them into the time period. One can truly learn about the war, as well as the time period from watching this film.

This is supposed to be better than every movie but The Godfather? Well, maybe I could think more positively about it without such ridiculous comparisons, but this is an average movie at best. I guess my biggest problem with it is that it is so completely far-fetched. You have a few characters supplied solely to provide the "sad" moments, and everything else is just built up to provide a fulfilling and completely happy ending. Now I'm no prison warden, but I would look behind my tenant's posters (more in case they've tunneled into each other's rooms for a little lights-out action).Anyway, as I thought about it more, the movie started to remind me of another classic prison flick, Cool Hand Luke. Unfortunately for Shawshank, Tim Robbins is no Paul Newman, and whatever stiff played the warden is no Struther Martin. Perhaps more importantly, though, is the way in which Cool Hand Luke presents a much more believable series of events, with no fairy tale ending. Luke's omission of the whole prison-love thing is even forgivable thanks to the inclusion of a classic car wash scene. One does not need a prisoner who happened to be roommates with a prisoner who happened to kill the wife of a man who happens to be a prisoner to create drama. It's a truth Shawshank dearly needs to learn.

Pretty much the above average summer blockbuster here. Will Smith can be trusted as a solid actor and nothing short of a good performance can be expected from him and the same was delivered. The most impressive part of this movie was the actual role played by the defective robot itself and it did'nt really stand out as a CGI character like that piece of crap Golem in Lord of the Rings. Great special effects, great action and some good performances. There wasn't too much of a story and they did desperately try to squeeze in something of a twist and tried to complicate matters but it didn't really work. Not Oscar winning material but without doubt one of the better sci-fi/action flicks in history.

I really loved this movie, from beginning to end it pulls you into it's great story and nicely crafted dialog. I love it when actors come together and get you to believe they are really best friends. I'm a computer history geek at heart so every time anything computer related was mentioned I tingled with delight. The editing of this film was great, not a confusing scene, everything worked together well. There were no holes in the story that I could see (probably because it was based on facts). This movie could of been three hours long and I would of still sat through it, and that's hard for me to do. I went to watch Fences and man I wanted to walk out half way through.You will be surprised when you see what these woman go through on a professional level in order to get where they want to be. I also think this movie was playing nice (or maybe the book was) when displaying the treatment of our leads, but hey I can't complain it still was a great movie.It's hard to believe that NASA back then had so much difficulty doing their jobs or getting a man in space. Maybe there is a reason we haven't went back to the moon. No one knows how! I love how this movie shows that sometimes you have to fight to get credit for your work. This happens often in the work place. These ladies handle it nicely. They play the game better than the white employees they worked with.I wish there could be a part two to this movie, but sadly I know there won't be. I guess I'll just have to keep re watching this one.

This is one of those movies that you will either like or hate. It falls into two categories, so bad it's good and so stupid it's funny. I think the reason this movie got really bad reviews from critics is because of the excessive nudity and sexuality. And I agree that their is excessive nudity and sexuality. But I was not expecting something Oscar worthy. I watched it with an open mind. The acting was so silly that I laughed. But that is what makes this movie so good. Another reason it is so good us because it is so bad. It even won most of the golden raspberry awards, including worst director. Do not go into this movie expecting so Oscar worthy or very serious. Just go into it with an open mind.

In the likes of Ford and Zinnemann´s masterpieces, Sergio Leoni´s film "The Good, the bad and the ugly" looks like a parody. It is mostly based upon violence and unjustified killings. The film tells the story of three men, who´s greed leads them to an eventual, highly predictable conclusion. During this time we get to witness children getting killed, ridiculous comments and a very overrated score, by the terribly over-estimated Ennio Marriconne.Instead of showing something of historical relevance or moral justification Leoni made a highly overrated film, that can not be compared with "The Searchers", "High Noon" and other great westerns. A talentless movie which becomes no more than a rather mediocre, entertaining film.

Roger Ebert stated this remake of the classic 1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre is, in his opinion, "vile" and "without social value." I have no choice but to agree. Every element which made Tobe Hooper's original version a classic is missing from this current travesty. There is not a single moment of cinematic style, believable violence and, the worse transgression of all, not one single moment of dread or fear. What made the original brilliant was its believability. The circumstances of this 2003 version, as well as the behavior of the characters, is completely absurd thus taking away its ability to scare. If you want to see a 2003 take on all the mystery, grit and believable insanity of the "Leatherface" character you won't be satisfied. Stick to the original!

so like i dragged 5 friends out to see this movie opening night based off of internet buzz and name (Neil Gaiman/Matthew Vaughn), i go to one movie all summer, what was i thinking. i mean, i paid for this crap, yet saw the Simpsons movie for free! i feel so bad, this flick sucked! we all knew little of the movie other than the terrible print ads that made the film look like an upcoming fall TV show, but based on the promise that this was based off of a Neil Gaiman graphic novel and directed by the guy who did Layer Cake, and reviews that touted it as a spirited romantic comedy fantasy similar to the Princess Bride, we were all unduly interested.out and out this movie Stardust sucked. while it started off promisingly with an unpredictable plot trajectory, by the time Claire Danes appears, everything starts to go down hill. first off, her acting is mediocre, (i was like Angela!), as does most of the acting in the film, and there was no chemistry between her or Charlie Cox who plays the hero Tristan or whatever, who at no point has the gravitas to come across as at all heroic, not even by the end battle scene. while the dialogue is not particularly bad, every scene is directed in a style where it's like the director and cast are all in on the joke and they're all winking at the audience. now while some people in the audience i was with ate the jokes up like pigs at the slop, by the time Robert Dinero appeared as the closeted gay pirate, the whole film just lost it completely. every gay stereotype comes out in dinero's hammy performance, and here's the joke! they got tough guy Dinero to act like a queen and ham it up and put on women's clothing, oh how clever, aha ha ha! by this point the film was just stupid and insulting, and downright homophobic in it's regurgitation of queer stereotypes. what was Robin Williams not available? anyways, by the time the whole thing comes stumbling to a conclusion, everything is so corny, hokey, and cheeseball, i was left wondering, where was the actual adventure? or the action? all i remember was some walking around and fuzzy overdone cgi. and choppy editing. there was nothing memorable or special like say, the princess bride, which this was striving so hard to be. this ain't even Legend. this ain't even Krull. leaving the film, i could see how this story could have worked as a graphic novel, and i could see how it could have possibly worked as a film adaptation had the filmmakers and director Vaughn spent more time playing straight and telling the story and directing his actors, and less time winking at the audience and assuming that it's still fashionable to be all postmodern and break the 4th wall in every scene.finally, i must say, Charlie Cox is no leading man, contrary to some predictions, he will not become a big star. the kid can't act, and the hairy chest is a deal breaker.

Like millions of people worldwide, I am a fan of the "Predator" franchise. Like millions more, the Predator was my childhood fear. Hearing that this movie was going to be released, I had to see it but I did not know what to expect. Fortunately, "Predators" is a fresh new look that could bring the franchise back to life.The film presents new aspects to the monsters, such as a new world and creatures, yet at the same time, it holds to the original film. For starters, the exact same music that Alan Silvestri composed is used and even though the film's location is another planet, it is a reflection of the jungle that I remember from the original. There are many other similarities that are between the two films, and though some may criticize as being a rip-off, I love it because it adds the disturbing eeriness that was so good about the original film. In regards to plot, I don't need to delve too deeply on. Eight individuals with violent and yet different backgrounds are brought to this new world as the Predators game. I did not recognize most of the actors, but all of them immersed themselves into their roles. I'll note that I found it unusual for Adrien Brody to play an action hero; nevertheless, he delivers a solid performance. Lawrence Fishburne is also a great contributor to the film (though I wish he had more screen time). The technical aspects of the film are brilliant; the visual effects help improve the scariness and ferocity of the Predators, the sound effects are freaky and retain to the original film's creepiness, the editing is crisp, and the cinematography is beautiful. This film pretty much has everything: characters, suspense, thrills, action, a couple of plot twists, and even a cliffhanger for a second film. Though I enjoy this film very much, it still can't top the original. It's definitely better than "Alien vs. Predator" and "Predator 2", but the original "Predator" will always be the winner and a classic in my book. On a final note, like the other Predator films, it is very violent-lots of blood, gore, and goo. This is definitely not for the faint of heart. But if you're like me, this movie might be for you. And you Predator fans out there, this is the film you have been waiting for!

Okay, Wonder Woman is now a huge success and not only that but the new front of the DCEU. The action is spectacular, the fighting is nice but what this movie fails in is the loopholes of the plot. Ares was cast down by Zeus and the Amazonians were isolated into a tropical paradise yet we are not clearly given a connection between the two incidents as to why. Then, we get a lousy plot about how Wonder Woman leaves of to London just because she thinks Ares is the reason for the war. Diana's mother confides with someone else to not tell Diana that she is a god killer, but this is said when she leaves so what's the point? Then starts a typical war story where the heroes win a battle, then again see innocents die because of a man's mistake and the man sacrificing himself so the other's can live. Okay I get that they were trying to make him a hero but come on, this is it? The plot stinks... so many typical plot points are used uselessly to bring out a stubborn biopic of a god, at least the scenes are interconnected but other than that its useless. It's not BvS bad but it's near Fantastic Four bad... Definitely another DC movie to evade, not different from Suicide Squad when it comes to clichés..

The Shawshank Redemption is hands down the best movie of all time. I will type that again, Shawshank Redemption is the best movie.....EVER. Everything about this movie is amazing. This is Tim Robbins best work, Morgan Freeman is perfect as Red in every frame of the film and everybody else is great in their roles. Every time I see this film I love it just a little bit more and it still stands as one of the best examples of hope ever to be put on film. It also has one of the lines in film history, which I have quoted often in my life, "Get busy living, or get busy dying." So overall, a total Masterpiece. 5 Beards Out Of 5 Check out my video review @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5PyYKla1G8

The casting and dialogue in this big-buck swashbuckler sparkle throughout. Banderas possesses the screen presence, dash and comic flair that the script requires. Hopkins, accent aside, is classy as the world-weary Zorro in search of a replacement and Catherine Zeta Jones looks and sounds suitably Latin as well as being suitably stunningly attractive and pretty good with a sword! The action is slick and timed perfectly but as director Martin Campbell is best known for his work on the Bond Film GOLDENEYE, that is really no surprise.The stunt work is excellent and very much in the classic Fairbanks-Flynn mould, particularly the horse-chase sequence which is straight out of pre-war Hollywood. Sets look good and the final explosive gold mine scenes are a match for TERMINATOR 2s apartment block-demolishing sequence. All in all the sort of film that in future years one can sit through comfortably at the christmas holidays without fore knowledge of the ending spoiling the whole thing. Great Fun.

I do love comedy, and while I am not a fan of Adam Sandler I have liked some of his films and performances. Until yesterday, the time I finally sat down to watch I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry after avoiding it like the plague for four years, I made up my mind that either Little Nicky or You Don't Mess with the Zohan was Adam Sandler's worst movie. But after seeing this, I've changed my mind, this movie is worse than both.The main reason is that unlike the other two movies, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry often borders on offensive and stereotypical. Not just in the stupid dialogue and artificial concoction of homosexual gags, but also in Rob Schneider's offensive cameo as a Japanese wedding chapel owner. None of the characters are likable and are little more than clichés and bland stereotypes, and not helped by equally stereotypical performances. Sandler manages to be even less likable than he is in the aforementioned films, and shows no chemistry with Kevin James or Jessica Biel who are both bland. The only performance that comes close to funny for me was actually Ving Rhames, who is appropriately dignified and shows a talent for comedy.Also not helping is the film's uneven tone. One minute it tries to be sincere, next minute it is vulgar and stupid, I actually questioned what the aim of the film was. The premise was decent enough, along with a finale that manages to be sort of funny, but the execution is very flimsy and I was constantly predicting what was happening in the next scene. The direction is very unfocused for similar reasons with the story and its execution. The sincere parts are so uneven and the tone shifts so much without warning, that any good points that I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry tries to make are buried.All in all, a poor movie that is a serious contender for Sandler's nadir of his career. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I don't know what to think about this movie. PTA is sure a good director , TWBB is one of my most favorite movies. But Inherent Vice is different. It's overly long , slow dialogue and it was hard to get into it. The cast and the performances are perfect though and I loved the style of the film. This isn't for everyone. Most people will find it a bit boring (like me) but I kinda enjoyed the last hour or so. And others will love it and praise it. 7/10 (too long , slow , not enough is going on to keep my interest) I still suggest to watch it and decide for yourself if you like it or not.

Amir Khan a person always amazes everyone,recently he is working for movies with a good moral lesson and a worthy base.That kind of movie is a "movie". Dangal is a good example it has a classic taste and digestible fun which peels off the people eyes. It is a true story full of suspense and when you're watching a fight you feel like you are wrestling in between this kind of quality is difficult to be produced and Amir is good at it. The reason for giving 9 stars is because of its ending I think it should be made better by showing scene like he is putting that medal at the wall of Honor. Anyways keep it up I was expecting this a thing from you. Love you :)

When Total Recall was first released, I dragged a friend to see it. I had seen the trailer and I thought it would impress others as it did for me. Big mistake! The movie started off great. The plot seem interesting and suspenseful. Then, some rubber mutant freaks came wandering and I was left pondering over the embarrassment for recommending the movie. This embarrassment includes a puppet popping out of an actor's chests, a chick with 3 hooters and some deformed plastic all-sorts walking around the set. If only they had not used any mutants in the movie. This film could have been more mature and if it was, it might have been a great all-time sci-fi classic. Instead, it's one big lemon in my books. Personal Opinion!

Once again I'm not able to write an objective review. I've been listening to Eminem since I was twelve. Many of his lyrics are stored right in my brain. His Infinite from 1996. is what made me a hip-hop fan even to this day.This autobiographical music drama is going to exhilarate Em's fans as well as hip-hop fans. Some others may find this movie boring or even ridiculous. When it comes to acting Eminem did a pretty good job for a rapper. I remember him speaking how hard he had worked in order to impersonate B-Rabbit. He had very little sleep (maybe few hours a day), took sleeping pills, wrote lyrics on set in spare time, had to drive long mileage to his place and back to the set. His fans know him well: if he's passionate about something he'll act almost like an addict.Other B-Rabbit's crew members did a solid job in acting. They were fun to watch and looked like they knew each other for years; even his opponents! I can only imagine Em's fans seeing B-Rabbit (Eminem) going toe-to-toe in a rap battle with Lil' Tic (Proof, R.I.P.) who was Eminem's best friend and amazing hype man. His fans know Proof's death almost ruined Em's career and sadly almost ended his life. Seeing them on stage, years after Proof passed away, makes me melancholic about early 2000's when Dre, D12 and Em swept the whole world with funky and violent Slim Shady as a leader. Look at his raw energy when he performed Square Dance (his concert intro theme) on Anger Management Tour 2002! You can clearly see the difference now without Proof. Back to the movie.When I was a teenage boy I almost fell in love with Alex (Brittany Murphy, R.I.P.). She was just to cute and cool! That short haired blonde girl played B-Rabbits girlfriend and did it amazingly; who can forget her cool, mellow swagger? Kim Basinger played Stephanie Smith, Em's mother he wrote so much about. She played his mother exactly as I had seen her from Em's songs. He's now sorry for writing "Cleaning Out My Closet" and "no more plays that song on shows and cringes every time it's on the radio" (Headlights ft. Nate Ruess). Michael Shannon (now starring in Midnight Special, 2016.) played Greg Buehl, his mother's boyfriend for whom B-Rabbit sings "He's tapping my mom and we're almost the same age". In reality, Michale is two years younger that Marshall.Now the music for which 8 mile won an Oscar. Opening scene hi-hats from Mobb Deep's Shook Ones pt.2 stick with me permanently. Feel Me Flow played by Naughty by Nature as well. What about Outkast's Players Ball, The Pharcyde's Runnin', Wu Tang Clan's C.R.E.A.M, Biggie's Juicy and many others? Not to mention first hip-hop song ever to win Academy Awards - Lose Yourself. 8 mile's soundtrack will delight all hip-hop fans and make them nod their heads.Story itself will be very familiar to those listening to Em. It's truly inspiring and in that "stands head, shoulders and heart above other movies made that year" as Joe Morgenstern from Wall Street Journal notes. It's a story about passion for something. And that's Em's life story. Now, fourteen years after movie was made, Eminem's made such success and has won so many prizes that's it very hard to list all of them. Wikipedia notes he won 155 prizes and was nominated for 311 on them. He's won 15 Grammy awards and was nominated for 43 more. Sold more than 120 million albums. He's now 44 and still doesn't look like giving up or doing something else.In conclusion: 8 mile is a modern poetry in motion for which hip-hop fans will forever be grateful. Great punch lines and multies in wintry 1995. Detroit? You've gotta love it.

No sense going into a detailed review describing what this film is about because there are enough reviews already. I'll just say it took me several viewings to finally figure out what was going on. It's not an easy to story to follow. It's also unusual: a crime story dealing with rights to water. To many people, that's odd but water has always been a precious commodity in southern California.There is nothing confusing about how this film looks. It's a treat for one's eyes, especially if you love that 1940s look, which I do. This movie just drips with Los Angeles film noir atmosphere: a rich-looking piece of cinema with great period detail.What stands out in most people's memory of this film is another odd thing: a man's nose getting sliced. Here, it's Jack Nicholson getting a "nose job" courtesy of some thugs. Jack, playing "Jake Gittes," will forever be known (among wild roles) as the guy with a bandage on his nose, thanks to this movie. As interesting as he is, along with Faye Dunaway and the rest of the cast, I always get a kick out of seeing John Huston in here. I love the way he sounds and acts, and I'm sorry he had such a short role.Overall, an always-fascinating film no matter how many times you watch it or how well you understand it.

Logan is a great film that takes all past X-men or wolverine films and builds upon them. The film doesn't shove answers in the viewers face and lets you think about what is happening. Truly a great outing for both Hugh Jackman as wolverine and Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X. Looking forward to see whats planned next in the X-men universe.

The Truman Show is founded on an enormous secret that all of the studio's advertising has been determined to reveal. I didn't know the secret when I saw the film, and was able to enjoy the little doubts and wondering that the filmmakers so carefully planted. Truman's world is controlled by a TV producer named Christof (Ed Harris), whose control room is high in the artificial dome that provides the sky and horizon of Seahaven. He discusses his programming on talk shows, and dismisses the protests of those (including Sylvia) who believe Truman is the victim of a cruel deception. Meanwhile, the whole world watches Truman's every move, and some viewers even leave the TV on all night, as he sleeps.The trajectory of the screenplay is more or less inevitable: Truman must gradually realize the truth of his environment, and try to escape from it. It's clever the way he's kept on his island by implanted traumas about travel and water. As the story unfolds, however, we're not simply expected to follow it: We're invited to think about the implications. About a world in which modern communications make celebrity possible, and inhuman.

Innovation: something new or different. An apt word to describe the film written by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis, based upon a story by Danny Rubin. With so many films just copying each other, sometimes with very little change other than the actors - witness the ripoffs of great foreign films made by Hollywood with sub-par actors - it is refreshing to see something different.Starring Bill Murray in what is probably his best role, Lost in Translation notwithstanding, it also feature a fantastic performance by Andie MacDowell, who grabbed my heart in Four Weddings and a Funeral.This is a film that will keep you laughing and holds up well despite the fact that I have seen it ten times at least.

The Bourne Identity is an extremely good movie and I would recommend this film to anyone who has read the book or seen the original movie. Matt Damon is the perfect part for this movie and Franka Potente was also a good choice after Run Lola Run. A must for all lovers of spy movies!!