Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

The good thing about this movie, that has been overlooked inall the ANGRY reviews below, is that it does NOT TAKE ITSELFSERIOUSLY!!!This is a relief after being konked over the head with thepretentiousness of GODZILLA and other popcorn-summer-teenageboy-movies.ANACONDA has the ability to wink at itself- literally- as ifto say, "We KNOW this is cheese, but ain't it fun?" And it is. Jon Voight is as over the top as any villian in anymovie you've ever seen, and the heros- Jennifer Lopez and IceCube and Eric Stoltz- form a kind of "mod squad" on the Amazon, with some witty banter and a little flirtation between all ofthem.Features Owen Wilson (of "Bottle Rocked" and "The Haunting" fame) cutting wise at every oportunity he gets.This is, of course, the MOST fun if you are an teenager, butwith the right viewing props- i.e. a few beers, or whatevergets you through the night- this is a fun evening..

I cannot believe that Hollywood is still prepared to invest so muchmoney (and skills) in producing films with so little content. The story is weak and hackneyed - the acting indifferent - thecasting largely idiosyncratic. One again the technical expertise isup to the usual high standards but the film as a package hasnothing going for it. Once again a great disappointment from Hollywood.

I won't be shocked if the DVD sales on this one tank.The preview looked great, but the actual thing wasn't that impressive. The Mayan prophecy wasn't even a part of the script! And I don't know if everyone else noticed this but both myself and a friend with me saw a sharp drop in cinematic quality about two thirds of the way through. It changed from a blockbuster to an episode of Star Trek.Now that being said, the movie is good, not legendary but well worth a watch, even a theater ticket but don't expect any form of supernatural apocalyptic thing and you'll really enjoy yourself. Don't watch the preview or forget it as much as you can and you'll enjoy it even more.

If it does not scary you no movie will. This movies has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. Underworld Evolution is scarier. Underworld Awakenings is also scarier. 7 is a good ratting. But this such a great movie that 7 is underrating it. I give it a 10. It is a great movie. It is scarier then The Shining and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then Friday the 13th and that is not easy to. This is scarier then Halloween and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then Twilight and that really is not easy to do.

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back in that impossible mission yet again and they've upped the thrill with a pace to match modern standards. As the IMF dissolves a Syndicate emerges as a threat to the agents themselves. So Ethan goes (sort of) undercover-rogue-agent to catch the real rogue agents. Honestly, something about this setup lost me to the point where I had no idea who the bad guy was and what the mission was really about. I cannot compare this film to the first film, as that film has to be one of the finest spy films to ever have been made. This is an action packed, entertaining thrill ride. It does not have the intensity of the first film and relied heavily on blowing our minds with effects and the possibilities of pulling them off in real life. Hanging onto a plane during take off really sets the tone for the ridiculous nature of all the action sequences to come. But hey, that's action. Perhaps the biggest growth in the series is the action. The first film packed more espionage and mystery to create these memorably tense moments, which is now replaced with fast paced and non-stop action. MI fans will love it. Action fans too. But for the espionage fans, this may very well become silly very quickly… maybe.This is Universal's thing though, big budgets, big actors, big sets for big rewards. The focus is not on the art but the entertainment and just like most of their 2015 releases it will prove to be a box office smash even if it will never last the test of time. As much as film is art, there should be an appreciation for the intensity of fast paced entertainment.I admire Christopher McQaurrie's writing as he has a great way of twisting a story never give anything away yet at the same time making the plot unfold naturally. His direction is not always as on point as his writing is. The beginning was not clear enough but as the story unfolds the mystery drags one in but does explode with a finale bordering on cheese pie. Perhaps it's the humour, hilarious at points yet tension busting at others.What it all boils down to is a fine evening of thrilling entertainment without much to really boggle the mind.

The movie is good, but I think it suffers from a couple of major problems.One problem is that the main character is too weak. If there is anyone taking the lead, it is definitely Charlize Theron. Mad Max is completely shadowed by other characters, even secondary ones.Another problem is the action is dull and repetitive, doing very little to carry the action forward. This is also the case in Fast and Furious, but in this case this is explicit and it is what the audience is expecting. The content of this Mad Max movie (including action that actually moves the story forward) would probably take no more than 30 min. All the rest is "just" show (though a beautiful one!).The design and scenography are brilliant, no question about it. But I think that for example the design in Zack Snyder's 300 is more coherent and a better contribution to the overall experience. The story in 300 is clearer and simpler, and every element and action scene makes it move forward in a clear way. This is not the case here. Characters in this Mad Max are empty shells, simple stereotypes with little content, mere puppets in a grandiose artsy atmosphere, with no inner life.Most of the action is completely reactive, with the characters in pure survival mode very rarely demonstrating anything of their inner self and their back story. I am all for not being spoon fed the back story, and against "talking heads" describing their background in lengthy dialogs. But this movie suffers from the opposite problem. Only very rarely did Mad Max suffered from flashes (quite literally) from his previous life, but it felt really completely out of touch with anything.In the end, I didn't regret watching the movie (specially in the cinema), but it really felt a bit short. At home, I don't think I would recommend, unless you watch in a very large TV.

Blame it on the economic crisis, but it continues to be a good time for post-apocalyptic cinema. Hollywood jumps on the-end-of-the-world bandwagon multiple times a year, and there's no excuse for other countries to do the same. A striking example from last year includes Elysium, wherein the majority of mankind is left to suffer on an overpopulated Earth while the rich live a life of luxury up in space. Directed by native South-African Neill Blomkamp, he utilized his home land settings and talent to great effect, though ultimately the Hollywood approach in terms of story and marketing prevailed. Not so with Snowpiercer, which dabbles in very similar themes, but proves to be enriched an experience by a rather un-American sensibility, courtesy of South-Korean director Joon-ho Bong.Snowpiercer's premise has to be taken with a grain of salt, at the risk of sounding ludicrous. Set in the year 2031, seventeen years after a worldwide attempt to halt global warming by dispersing cooling gasses into the atmosphere went awry, our planet suffers under an ice age that covers the globe in snow. Humanity's last survivors live aboard a huge train, where a rigid class system has developed. The poor masses are relegated to the back of the train, while the wealthy live in the front in comfort. Powered by a perpetuum mobile, the train rages over the frozen planet's surface, seemingly ad infinitum. While the haves party to their leisure, the have-nots suffer endlessly, huddled together in squalor. Biding their time under the command of the calculating Curtis, the dispossessed plot their revolution, hellbent on overthrowing the system and taking over the train. Such a plot line seems thirteen-a-dozen when it comes to dystopian cinema, but the unusual element of the train makes all the difference, if you're willing to accept this rather bizarre concept.'Bizarre' is exactly right to describe Bong's approach to Snowpiercer. With The Host, he delivered a monster-on-a-rampage movie unlike any other, while his celebrated, twisted thriller Memories of Murder firmly rooted him as a commentator on the human capacity for violence. Snowpiercer fits right into his resumé and stylistically reveals him to have auteur tendencies. The cruel and the weird go hand in hand in his clash of classes. Bong takes his time to explore the train and its hierarchy. As the desperate rebels slowly but surely work their way to the front of the train, Bong keeps surprising us as much as his protagonists with each compartment they enter. But each discovery also comes with new dangers, both physically and in terms of resolve, as Curtis moves ever closer to the 'end boss', and upon meeting him finds out the true machinations of the powers-that-be.Bong tells his strange tale of revolution through an international ensemble of actors. You'd be inclined to think of Evans as a typical all-American hero leading the quest for freedom, but you'd be much mistaken, as the character carries a sordid past that would write him off as such. The same is true for Jamie Bell, his hotheaded sidekick, whose relationship with his leader is more disturbing than you would at first glance suspect. Bong surprises you continuously with the twisted interrelations between his protagonists. John Hurt plays an archetypal wise old man as he has done on many occasions, but what we come to know about him again subverts expectations, as do the motives of the demolitions expert/drug addict Kang-ho Song and his clairvoyant daughter. The audience is being toyed with in their mental perception of "the good guys" as it is in regards to the physical appearance of the baddie, Mason, an unrecognizable Tilda Swinton in an outrageous costume. Nevertheless, the cast succeeds in relaying the fact this class conflict isn't as black and white as you would believe; the line between good and bad is as thin as the rails that keep their train going.Even more colourful is Bong's sense of style. Clearly a confined space, Bong makes good use of it to show off his train in flexible cinematography and a colour scheme to match. Starting off with the tormented oppressed, he sticks with an abundance of brown tones and cramped, crowded spaces for the first hour, before he lets in the light and dazzles both the revolutionaries and the audience with the rich, vibrant world of the oppressors. A vegetable garden, an aquarium walkthrough, a classroom car; we're confronted with whatever we expect the least, and Bong has it all make sense. He still throws us off-guard in terms of the flow of the narrative. Bong makes use of the occasional off-beat, absurdist moment that adds to his weird train, but suggests the director's dark predilections. A brutal showdown between the tyranny and the insurgents is postponed by a New Year celebration, while a cheerful classroom scene explodes in a bloody shootout, the presence of children notwithstanding. Not the type of thing you'd find in American dystopian flicks. The climax however does leave room for hope, which feels out of place and hints at studio interference from the American investors. As for the action scenes, they are all sufficiently choreographed to make you bite into the mayhem, despite the oddities Bong throws at you. Unfortunately many visual effects shots of the world outside prove rather digital, making you wish Bong would stick to the train, which is where all the excitement happens.Snowpiercer's premise and the logistics of its world might be hard to accept, but Bong makes it work. He keeps surprising you, confronting you with your own expectations, fed by having seen mostly American takes on the conflict between good and evil in dystopian societies. If you accept Bong's craziness and unwillingness to adhere to orthodox storytelling, Snowpiercer proves an intriguing ride, though not everyone will be able to stay on board, violent, disturbing and messed up as it deservedly can be called.

I am not one who enjoys western movies at all. Watching "Stagecoach" i nearly fell asleep! This film was surprisingly different. Rather than all the tough, cold action from normal westerns, Butch and Sundance added much humor to the film. It was a film where you are actually on the bad guys side because their characters are so likable! I enjoyed how Butch, played by Paul Newman, and Sundance, played by Robert Redford were such a dynamic duo! The script was very well written. Most western films have very cheesy lines, and an unnatural tone, but this film worked just perfectly. The dry humor was such a nice touch.It was interesting to see how quickly after the Hays Code had ended that there was nudity in films in the late sixties. For example when Butch's girlfriend undresses in front of him. This type of material never would have been allowed even ten years prior.

Alien is a masterpiece of the genre, and the talented Sigourney Weaver is amazing. At the beginning the film is quite slow, and this is nothing but a smart directorial choice to raise the suspense yet emphasized by the dark atmosphere and the terrible silence of the outer space. The plot twisted and turned within the Nostromo space shuttle (except when the astronauts land in the unknown aliens' planet) but the film is not boring at all: instead is thrilling, the cast is exceptional and harmonious, the direction is outstanding and the plot is interesting and very new at that time. The charming character of the brave Ellen Ripley stays sculpted in the history of science fiction's cinematography. Unfortunately they created a saga of useless Alien sequels and recently an ugly duplicate (with "Prometheus"). The very first Alien remains the best sci-fi horror movie in the history of cinema (so far!).

The movie was great. I would still count the first two as my favourite rather then this one only because it is a bit different. Obviously subject is still the same but action is completely changed. I can't wait to see part two - hopefully will be a bit more about everybody's abilities rather then the whole idea of war. I don't really like the fact that she - Katniss - is not decided whom she loves or not, or at least if she would be capable of making a difference as in love and caring about one of the boys. But she is a great actress and she was well chosen on representing the movie and even the mocking jay. Can't wait to see the final!

The first thing that I loved about this movie, even before the first line was spoken, was the music. Phillip Glass did an excellent job creating the soundtrack for this movie. The music is terrific! This movie is about a graduate student named Helen Lyle who is writing her thesis on Candyman, an urban legend who might be real and live in the projects of Chicago. Upon her research, she stumbles upon a series of "accidents" and her research is quickly lost and forgotten as the movie goes on.The look of Candyman in the shadows is very creepy and his deep deep voice will echo in your head long after you see this movie.Next time that you look in the mirror, don't think about this movie and seriously don't say his name!

I thought that this movie was going to be foolish but not all that bad... I was wrong and i was right... The movie was foolish in some respects, but it is a comedy and a sort of teen flick in the fact that these are teens (it wouldn't have worked very well with just adults anyway). I must say that the foolishness is done well in that it wasn't out of placeI believe the director and writers snuck a real movie in there somewhere.. This movie game me the feeling I got when I watched "almost famous" for the first time... It's no where near the caliber of that film but it does a good job of mixing those elements with the elements of a basic teen comedy. This is a story of finding your self in life as in 'Almost Famous'I liked that it did the bully thing but it was not with the expected jocks that are always the bully and you did not see the characters back down so quickly only to muscle enough strength later... This was a gradual approach to man hood and a brave step forward... Anyway enough rambling... 7/10P.S. this is my first post after registering today.. I must really like this film I'll up it to a 8/10

oh dear.. i saw the trailer for silent hill, and expected to be scared. i am not good with horror films, and silent hill looked like i might have needed a change of underwear from the trailer. wrong. this was really not scary in the slightest. i think it was really the use of monsters that took a film with the potential of being really scary to being just ridiculous. i think that in this day and age, with the amount of horror films and video games about that directors should have realised that the big weird creature things that they insisted on cramming into silent hill, just weren't scary any more. whats more, i was completely confused about the end. what the crap happened to them? did they die, did they get sucked into a vortex, was any of it actually real? if someone could enlighten me on this issue i would appreciate it. i think the special effects were good, and the overall impression i got from this film was that it was quite cool. but not scary. at all. and to the people who say 'if you played the game you would enjoy it more' i say no. i played the games, and loved them. if anything it made me hate the film more, cause the director just killed some great, scary games.

I literally made an account just to express my anger over this series and its producers.The first couple of seasons were good (or average), but the writers managed to ruin it with their many plot holes, inconsistent writing, conflicting timelines, and lies. They make more and more and more new characters and stories, while leaving existing arcs/mysteries unanswered. Roughly 80% of characters are nothing more than plot devices without any substance or redeeming qualities.This show is literally in my top 5 of worst TV show *ever.* Each season the quality drops lower than the last. The way the girls are written also reeks sexism and transphobia (I am not exaggerating...).The producer and head writer, Marlene King, is a rude and childish "adult." Not only did she single-handedly ruin the series, but she's so petty that she blocks people who tweet her anything negative about the show (even if the tweet is written VERY politely and VERY justified) because she does not know how to handle criticism and take responsibility. If you, as a creator, react poorly towards constructive criticism then that tells me you don't care about the fans and only care about REVENUE.Will no longer be watching.

I gave this movie a 7 rating based upon Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and his die hard tactics alone. At the beginning of this flick I was ready to pull the plug and call it a bust, but I'm glad I hung in there. Still, the only compelling part of this movie was Bryan Mills' tenacity, resourcefulness and ability to kick a**. The movie started very slow and uninteresting. I'm well aware that movies need some character build up time, but I found that I didn't like the characters. When a spoiled girl, with the help of her mother, lies to trick her father into letting her go to Paris with another equally young and naive girl only to be kidnapped... we tend to say: you make your bed you lie in it. You reap what you sow is also applicable. In other words, all that was going through my head was, "far less deserving girls have gotten kidnapped and I'm supposed to care about you?" So, to start, I wasn't all that sympathetic nor was I moved to fully root for Bryan Mills to buck all odds.My attitude soon changed. It didn't change because I saw the purity and innocence of his daughter, it changed once I began to see the sheer creepery (or should I say creepness?) of the characters involved in the kidnapping. Then, and only then, did I want to see faces smashed, pain inflicted and overall destruction. I don't think it was Liam Neeson's acting so much as it was the script that depicted Bryan Mills utter desperation and at-all-costs willingness to get his daughter back.This movie was a cross between Hostel and Man on Fire and it was still able to have a unique enough flare to separate it from those two. A vigilante film done well is always good in my book

There may have been better written films about the holocaust - but this is without the most authentic and touching account I have seen since Claude Lanzmann's epic documentary "Shoah" - as you might expect from director Polanski, himself a child survivor of the Krakov and Warsaw ghettos.Here he eschews melodrama, and the pornography of violence to present of film which is full of love, life and hope amidst terrible events.

The cast... the main characters, especially Clarke and Raven are a joke, to be honest they are not acting but over-acting... direction is amateur...'Under the Dome' is far far better than this, the cast is strong, they know what they are doing and the story is strong too with a brilliant direction... I bet whoever has seen 'Under the Dome' would agree with me totally...GO WATCH 'Under the Dome', if you still dare to watch 'The 100' I am sure that you will start cursing the characters like you never did before...

HELLBOY II threatens to be nothing more than your latest CGI-laden braindead Hollywood action movie, and yet it's not, thanks to the presence of director Guillermo del Toro. Del Toro has to possess one of the most imaginative minds in Hollywood and he brings a level of creativity to the movie that's sorely lacking in most genre fare getting released these days. Del Toro's imagination comes to the fore in the myriad creatures he creates for this movie, bringing to life monster upon monster with no end to the creativity in sight.Even better, the producers have the budget to match the vivid creations coming out of the minds of this film's makers, and the special effects do not disappoint. The CGI in this movie is phenomenal, with not a single effect out of place. Having just sat through the dodgy, odd-looking chimpanzees of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, I'm doubly impressed by the quality of the CGI in this movie (which was made with a lower budget than the ape film, it has to be said). It's an entirely visual film, one which never disappoints.The plot, of course, is secondary to the effects, but that doesn't matter so much this time around. As usual, there's a bad guy (Luke Goss, returning as a del Toro villain after BLADE II) who wants to take over the world and who has all manner of mean and wild creations to help him in the process. Up against him is Hellboy and his companions. The return of welcome old faces is great (and kudos to the writers for giving the excellent Abe Sapien a bigger part this time around) and the new character of Johann Krauss is similarly a work of genius. Hellboy is his usual wisecracking self and Perlman brings plenty of laconic humour to the part.The narrative pretty much leads from one wild set-piece to the next, with some more effective than others. Hellboy's encounter with the nature god is my favourite part of the film, although the run-in with the titular army at the movie's climax is also fairly exhilarating. Okay, so this isn't a great movie – the story doesn't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny, after all is told – but it looks the part and I can't dislike any movie with this level of sheer inventiveness behind it.

Safe Sandler fare served with the usual hefty portions of politically incorrect humor reminiscent of Borat.Adam Sandler is Zohan Dvir, an Israeli counter-terrorist who hides out in New York to pursue his passion: hairdressing. Of course his loyal standbys like Rob Schneider have bit parts, but the lady love of the moment is Emmanuelle Chriqui who plays Dalia, the Palestinian owner of the small-town hair salon where Zohan works.It's still the shock-value stuff v. few actors can get away with and Sandler and veteran comedy director Dennis Dugan takes full advantage of it. Judd Apatow helps in the writing in Zohan, too. The staple good moral story that is usually the underlying thread in movies in this genre is present in Zohan, too, and in this case it's can't we all just get along?/unity in diversity.While it's always nice that this formula of brash comedy laced with a satiric commentary still sells, some variations to liven up the jokes (which can get tired) would be better appreciated by loyal Sandler/Dugan fans. Yes, we love the ridiculous humor and are grateful for the preachy attacks on social ills, but I believe we are ready for better writing now.

I haven't got that much of an opinion to share about this remake of the legendary Tobe Hooper film. It's rather well-made, fairly gruesome and reasonably tense. The young and inexperienced actors do a pretty convincing job while older veterans like R. Lee Ermey clearly amused themselves in their roles of deranged hillbillies. Director Marcus Nispel (ex-director of music videos, of course) makes the most of out the dark, colorless and depressing settings. The complete lack of civilization is the film's strongest aspect. Which brings me to all the negativity. More particularly: WHY?! …Why…why was it made?! It's better not to wonder about this question too much. I'm one of them weird people who thinks the original TCM was one of the most important American movies ever and the most essential film to watch if you're a horror fan. And, if there ever was one film that didn't require a remake, it's this one! Still as scary as ever and the raw atmosphere of the original can never be equalled. The Texas Chainsaw Remake is nothing but an attractive money-maker…which is pretty much okay by me. This type of remakes, sequels and rip-offs is merely intended for young and over-enthusiast horror buffs. I think it's positive because they can find out about the original this way. Although, they better don't claim that this boisterous remake beats the Tobe Hooper original… That's like openly declaring you don't know crap about horror and you deserve death…by chainsaw!!

Contains spoilersThe James Bond franchise, in the year 2003, is celebrating it's 41st anniversary. No other series in motion picture history has lasted this long, and it is likely we will be seeing the adventures of 007 for years to come. The series has survived through and beyond the Cold War and a few creative slumps. And unfortunately, Bond's 40th anniversary film, DIE ANOTHER DAY, is one of those slumps.I hadn't seen this film for several months when I watched it last night. During that gap, I had been rather leniant and positive about this film, maintaining it to be an average Bond movie. After all, it was this film, which I saw with my family in November, that initially got me interested in Bond and convinced me to watch all of the other films. As the films came and went, I still maintained a positive stand on DIE ANOTHER DAY. However, re-watching last night and viewing it after seeing all the other Bond films showed to me what a horrible piece of garbage it was and I now find it embarassing that this film got me into Bond.The plot of the film is tired and uninspired, borrowing heavily from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (which was also one of the poorest enteries in the series) and the original novel of MOONRAKER. Despite getting inspiration from one of Fleming's novels, that element is ruined by the DIAMONDS plot. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade had an intense, Fleming-esque story for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but in this film, they abandon that for all out action, Moore Era gags, and so much other junk that serves no point to an almost invisible story that I think that some Bond purists will find this film painful to watch.Let us start with the characters, shall we? First of all, James Bond. His capture for 14 months and being tortured was a sheer bit of brilliance that Pierce Brosnan himself suggested. The pre-credits sequence to Bond's stay in Hong Kong make up the one small part of this film worth watching. Once Bond goes to Jamacia, the movie and Bond's character fall apart. The torture sequence showed Bond's vunerability in an excellent way, but the rest of the movie fails to follow up on that as Bond becomes how he was in the worst time of the Moore Era. Bond relies soely on his gadgets and his surf on the top of the ice wave...I'll come back to that. The point is, the Bond character has not been insulted this much since A VIEW TO A KILL. Now onto Jinx. Like Dr. Christmas Jones before her, Jinx is poorly written and serves no point to the story (why was the American NSA after Zao? No reason was given at all). I'm sure most of you have heared of all those interviews where Halle Barry says that Jinx is the Bond equal. She's not. She needs to be saved too many times and panics far too easily, especially for a secret agent. Both villains, Colonel Moon/Gustav Graves and Zao are terribly written, portrayed as sterotypical, one-dimensional villains. Colonel Moon kills his own father, and takes pleasure in it. I still say that North Korea's protests against the film due to the villain were unfounded (Moon's father is somewhat of a protagonist), but these villains are horrible. M, Moneypenny (who now looks too old), and Robinson are spared the terrors this film holds, but Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner is absent. With the death of Desmond Llewelyn (a horrible blow to the series), John Cleese is promoted from "R" to Q, and is the new Quartermaster of MI6. He excels in the role, keeping the essence of Q but still maintaing a difference from Desmond in that he intentionally tries to promote laughter by being extremely sarcastic instead of being serious. However, despite Cleese's performance, like Bernard Lee, nobody does it better than Desmond. The one antagonist I haven't mentioned is one of Bond's ladies, Miranda Frost. She serves a point to the plot and is interesting at the beginning, but she too is lowered to a one-dimensional flop.For the first time ever in a Bond film, I have to complain about the stunts, directing, and editing. First the stunts. This film HAS no stunts. A stunt is when a real human being does death-defying feats of nature with all possible measures of safety added in. This film felt the need to insult human abbilites and instead have all "stunts" in this film be CGI and bluescreen. The CGI isn't terrible; on the ice wave, I couldn't tell that it was CGI until Bond slides up the one large iceberg; but at other times, the CGI is poorly done. This kind of stuff does not belong in a Bond film at all. Bond films have a reputation for doing absolutely everything for real; why ruin a good reputation? All "stunts" in this film are feats absolutely impossible for humans or machines to do and real stunts would have worked just as well, and possibly save this film somewhat. Next, the editing and directing together. The combination of the two make many scenes look more like bluescreen then the real bluescreen shots. The swordfighting sequence in the film represents Bob Anderson at his best, but the effect is dulled by the bad editing and speeded directing. Finally, all the music video, MATRIX-style editing does not belong in a Bond film and I hope that the American editor of this film is fired. Thanks to the Lord that Lee Tamahori won't be directing Bond 21.This film's redemtion that saves it from being worse than A VIEW TO A KILL is that it looks spectacular, the first couple minutes are good, and this film got me interested in Bond in the first place.In summary, DIE ANOTHER DAY is the Moore film of the Brosnan Era, and a bad one at that. Let us all hope that Bond 21 will have a Fleming-type Bond, an intense story, real stunts, normal editing, and good characters. This film gets a 2 out of 10.

One of the absolute best movies of all time. The parts in the movie were incredible...and Willem Defoe's character was incredible. This is one of the movies that I'm gonna get on DVD. It's worth it. If you've never seen this movie, get it. If you've seen this movie, see it again.

I didn't really think this was that bad of a movie, I mean it's not the godfather or anything, and it's not Adam Sandler's best flick, but it's got moments where it's quite funny and touching. Yes, it's sophomoric, but come on, that's what Adam was shooting for. Frankly I'm glad to see a Christmas movie that's different from the rest.

I got this feeling when i saw Lagaan a couple of years back and i had the same goose bumps when i witnessed the true brilliance of actors and director and music director in form of RANG DE BASANTI...Movie belongs to Amir all the way, he proves yet again, why hes the most talented actor in Bollywood. All actors supported him beautifully...Another scoring point is the dialogues, just awesome...And last but not the least the amazing brilliance of Mr. A R RAHMAN, this man adds life to this movie with his inspirational music...Watch it you must, if you are movie lover...

Great movie. I am from USA. But, being that I have lived in Thailand for the last year I believe that has made this movie even funnier. Most of the information related to Bangkok in the movie is the truth. Anyone that says the movie is bad for Thai/Asian people obviously has never been to Bangkok. Besides the monkey being a drug dealer, I have witnessed personally everything in this movie. From the radical of the transvestite/katoey, to the horrible karaoke of Tyson, it explains the nightlife of Bangkok/Thailand very well. I watched this movie with my Thai girlfriend and many other Thais in a majorcineplex, they all enjoy the movie very much, sometimes laughing more than I. After the movie I asked my gf if she thought the movie portrayed Thai's badly, and she replied "No, its the truth". I hope everyone enjoys the movie. I love Thailand, long live HM the King!

When one sees these blockbusters, full of CinemaScope-like battle scenes, colors, graphic decapitations, the first impression is that there must be something here. I disagree with people who say it shouldn't be criticized because it's a movie and doesn't promise to be American history. No movie is an accurate portrayal of American history. They do however, within the world of the film, present accuracies and verisimilitude. This one is again a monster movie. The personification of evil, Satan himself, is British, and heartless. He locks people up in a church and burns them alive. He has no regard for anything--they are as flies to little boys--they kill them for their sport. Not only that, he's impenetrable, he's yet another thing that can't be killed. Thank God Mel Gibson is around. Unfortunately, by the time he gets into the action, there's not much left. The battle scenes are breathtaking; the scope of the movie phenomenal. Can't someone take this and do a Saving Private Ryan or Paths of Glory. Instead, we end up with the supernatural villain who can only be killed if he faces the Gibber, who personifies Popeye when he says, "That's all I can stands, cuz I can't stands no more!" I didn't make it to the theater to see this. I'm sure visually it is more grand than my big screen TV. A little subtlety, using characters we care about, people with hearts and souls, and, yes, a little bit of reality about what the American Revolution was about. As it stands now, we have shown that the great Patriots and Revolutionaries didn't win the war--An Australian Did! Aren't they part of the British Empire?

The superhero picture has really overstayed their welcome. I don't mean just Marvel, but DC and others. There's too many clichés, everything is too superficial and everything blends too well with others of similar nature. Now, superhero films are being targeted towards younger children with overly-stylized and colourful sets, and some of the worst jokes possible. Superhero movies now a lacking seriousness and passion that used to make them great. These ones now are far too silly to be taken seriously. While comedy is violently stuffed in these films, the main thing that kept the latest Thor movie from being more than just "okay" is that the story made no sense and all the characters were out of place. Dr. Strange appears in it just because. There's some cool monsters in it just because. Cate Blanchett parades around the majority of the movie just because. I know people dig just seeing random cameos and cool things for no apparent reason other than to look cool. Thor and Loki's sibling rivalry is still rocky. Thor either awakens or happens to come across Ragnarok. Cate Blanchett the human version of Rag? Already forgotten and don't care the least. Thor gets transported to a universe (maybe just a planet, but no biggie) where fights happen like UFC. His opponent is the Hulk. We've all seen the excerpt from the trailers. Well Thor's escapades in that universe are weak with uninteresting characters leading the way. And you guessed it: bad jokes! Meanwhile on Earth (or whatever planet the main story is) has Cate Blanchett taking over. She looks cool, but is rather bland. And still: bad jokes!I know that this movie tries to be part comedy, but please don't. The jokes in all the movies (except for Iron Man) are horrible movies that only 6-year-olds will be amused with. Next Marvel movie, please don't force so many jokes!! NONE OF THEM ARE FUNNY!!!!So the jokes suck, the characters suck and are out of place, the stories make no sense, but the action and special effects though...wow! The opening scene has Thor fighting Ragnarok which blew me away. The fight between Hulk and Thor is awesome. There's a few other scenes of breathtaking visuals and sweet action that I loved!This movie is a standard pass.

This is a movie with a great tale to tell. I have too believe the book is better. I think I know why too. This movie tries to tell the story as a great Managment Story, General Manager Story to be exact. The trouble is the heart is taken out of the story because of that approach.I understand that Brad Pitt is trying to be made into a great actor. The trouble is Pitt is not a great actor. He can't carry a film because all his career he has been women's eye candy. Now that he is not as young as he once was, this movie proves it.He is surrounded by a good supporting cast, but the folks around him are wasted as this movie tries to prove that a general manager and a Yale graduate with a computer can win in baseball. Making management into a hero is something that will warm the 1 percent, but leaves the 99% out cold.When the film is using baseball clips, it is at it's strongest. For some reason, the script conversion here has dialog which does not allow the cast to really dig in. I understand Pitt is retiring from acting in 2 years. This movie proves he has never really acted. Granted, you could blame the script he is reading from but Pitt seems to be wooden in every film he has ever done.Once the movie gets past 2 hours, it gets too long. It is based on a true story but I would think the real people had better emotions and words than the cast here has or does. Hoffman is nearly wasted in his role as Manager Art Howe, a role which he is perfect for but gets very little script to work with.This movie about the Oakland A's could have been so much better. It fails to point out the human element. It makes me long for Jim Bouton's 1960's novel "Ball Four" which is a great picture of Baseball before free agency and money. Too bad that kind of baseball book can not be written now so we can compare what Jim Catfish Hunter's first free agent victory has really done too change the game.This movie is half-baked. I hope the book is much better.

I loved this movie. The story line was great. I am not a gamer so I was a bit pessimistic watching this movie but from beginning to end I could not stop watching. I disagree with the movie critics give this movie a chance it will greatly amaze you. It was not a cheesy action movie it was quite believable which is very rare. The main actor also gave an outstanding performance the movie was way over my expectations. I'm never going with the critics again. I just have to see it myself to make my own judgment. Go watch the movie especially if you're a mom like me the main actor was hot!!! I only heard of Assassin's Creed from my teenage son knowing it was a video game did not think I would enjoy it but boy was I wrong. I LOVED IT!!!!

Since taking on Hunger Games, Lawrence has arguably become Hollywood's most successful and revered performer, blowing up box-offices and frequenting award stages. As MjP1's Katniss, a character burdened with being the hope AND the cause of Panem's war, she carries the responsibility placed on her with complexity, strength, fear and heartbreak. Add in the film's exploration of faith and fear, and its criticizing political spins of all kinds, and it becomes clear: the Hunger Games franchise is a cinematic force to be reckoned with. To shove this aside with the other YA films is grossly inaccurate; MjP1 proves that this is among the premiere SciFi franchises of this era. We catch up with Katniss in underground District 13, reluctantly leading the rebellion against President Snow and the Capitol. The story is skillfully told, with the power of fear palpable in the oppressed 99%, and the fear of power creeping up in the 1%. It's a solemn affair, to be sure, but not without its moments of levity, solidly exhibited in the high-caliber actors that are the strength of the series. Lawrence, Banks, Sutherland, and Hoffman are all standouts, with the nice addition of Moore as a political player with dubious motives. Like Harry Potter's second-to-last film, MjP1 is essentially a glorified first act to a two-part story. This will leave some wanting, especially in the areas of action and closure. However, with the amount of passion, scenery-chewing, and complex commentary within, it left me more than satisfied, while excited about the next one. Emotionally powerful and socially conscious, MjP1 is a massive step up in the zeitgeist-y franchise.

This is hands down, Al Pacino's best performance since the Godfather. He goes through no mad tirades with wild hand gestures and screaming as he is accustomed to doing, so much so he has become a caricature of himself. In this movie, he gets back to acting instead of playing himself. And boy, does he ever deliver.This is a movie about borders; where there are no shades of gray, only the thin border between black and white. When you lose you're way, no matter how slight, there is no going back. Pacino realizes this at the end of the movie.This is not your usual bang em up, shoot em down cop movie, but an intellectual look at vulnerability due to stress and the blurring of lines. Robin Williams is excellent as the wolf in sheep's clothing predator. Pacino is amazing as the wore down big city cop, who meets his match in small town Alaska. The rest of the cast play their roles very effectivally, not deterring any attention away from Pacino or Williams. There are so many subtle lines delivered, so many fragile scenes, it doesn't surprise me it was directed by the man who carefully delivered us Memento. I look forward to seeing his next crime drama.To all the people who are tired of the usual forensic themed, serial killer hunt movie, this is a darn original spin on good old fashioned cop work. I highly recommend it.

The Western genre has lay mainly dormant for some years until Tarrantino put his spin on the genre with films like Django Unchained and even Kill Bill vol 2. Now another fairly well known director, Antoine Fuqua, takes the reins of not only a classic genre, but a classic film as he remakes The Magnificent Seven. Staring a regular of Fuquas films, Denzel Washington and that guy from Parks and rec who is kind of a big deal now (to marvel and Jurassic park fans i'd like to make clear that that's a joke or at least a sad attempt). The Magnificent Seven takes you back to the old days of the old west and is pretty decent remake.This film is a straight up classic western. The winging of saloon doors, the close up shots of cowboy boots, the dead silence extreme close ups of eyes before a showdown. All the conventions are there. To me this worked as we haven't seen a classical western for some time now and so this worked in Fuqua's favour, as his direction comes across as nostalgic rather than repetitive.Another grate moment is the battle sequence. Once the action starts it goes on for a while before it reaches, in my opinion, its fantastically executed conclusion. This is not a bad thing as the battle is griping and entertaining for every second and Fuqua maintains the flow and excitement wonderfully throughout the lengthy sequence. The stunts pulled and so on are, dare I say it, MAGNIFICENT.Now the issue I have is that we really didn't get to know the Seven. We of course get introduced to each one but aside from their contribution to the group (Bounty Hunter for Denzel for example) and their ability to fight we don't really know anything about them. Some characters like Vasquez and Red Harvest you see very little of in the film, the film mainly focuses on Chisolm, Faraday and Goodnight. Speaking of Goodnight (Ethan Hawke), there is an effort made however with him, but I didn't particularly understand what was going on in the late night chats with Chisolm. The film also lacks, to me at least, in team bonding. Yes I know they share meals together as we see some bonding but I just felt a little more was needed and to be focused on more than being a rather quick scene here and there.Overall, The Magnificent Seven is a well acted and directed classic western whose script could have used more detail in the characters introduction. I would like to point out that Peter Saarsgaard voice was quite humorous throughout, always sounding as if he's waiting for puberty to pass. So all in all, out of 10 I rate this film a magnificent 7

Having grown up reading the original book by Roald Dahl, and seeing the 1970's film version many times, I was looking for that little bit of child nostalgia when I entered the screening for this. Tim Burton directs and he is no stranger to remakes, re-imaginations or re-works what ever you want to call them (Planet of The Apes anyone?). Luckily for us, whenever Burton gets together with his favourite leading man, Johnny Depp its usually a recipe for success. Chocolate factory you'll be relieved to learn is no different, living up to the expectations, exceeding in some quarters but falling short in others. I'm sure you all know of the story, down on his luck, poverty stricken young boy, Charlie Bucket dreams of winning one of 5 golden tickets Willi Wonka places in his candy bars, thus allowing the lucky recipient a full days tour of his factory. No one has been in or out of the factory for many years. The adventure on screen takes us through the very pages of the book but also add's some backs story to Wonka's slightly weird outlook on life, it gives him a history and that little bit of depth that maybe had been missing in the Gene Wilder version. A few crucial things are missed out though like Charlie being so sometime sickly sweet, by the fact he follows the rules and doesn't do anything but what Mr Wonka tells him, there is also a slightly more extended glass elevator bit towards the end. All in all these minor alterations blend in well with the already so familiar storyline. The demise of each child within the chocolate factory tour is built up to a great climax each time, the only slightly alarming thing is the rather chipmunk style songs the extremely small Oompa Loompa's sing, I preferred the 1970's version songs here. The Oompa Loompa's themselves are magically played by Deep Roy in double role, they are made extra small with computer wizardry and this just add's to this wacky race of little people. Many reviews will rave about the child actors, Veruca Salt & Violet are both played really nastily by their respective child actresses, and Charlie will get plaudits too, played by Freddie Highmore (Finding Neverland). But personally I don't think he has as much meaty material as he could have had and he does a basic job of acting the sweet little kid, which I'm sure anyone could of. The real acting masterclass in this film is by miles Johnny Depp's magnificent performance of Willi Wonka, he plays the choclotier as if he was b to do so. The chocolate man's zany persona and troubled childhood becomes apparent through Depp's acting and the humour is magnified with his execution of the script. Depp has proved many times he can play off the wall characters (Blow, Jack Sparrow in Pirates of Caribbean), and this time he's done it again. Watch out for the constant banter between Depp and one of the kids Mike Teevee, Classic comedy moments! All in all the movie could have been a massive disappointment, and comparisons with the 70's version are going to happen regardless even though they are two different films of different era's and each stands alone on its own merits (one has better songs then the other, one has a better Willi Wonka then the other etc). But just enjoy this film for the great colourful grandeur scale sets, classic storyline and hilarious Depp performance of Wonka.

Good heavens, this is the best war film I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. Ridley Scott should've won that Oscar for best directing, and the editing isn't bad either! I esp like the scene with those helicopters breaking away and saving or aiding the soldiers. A good film, and it answered several questions I had. Behind Enemy Lines was also good, but this one blew my away. Good work, all!

You can tell a lot of money was spent on this sequel to Thor (2011) but unfortunately as with tradition this sequel (like most sequels) does not live up to its original film and its sad because they had a very fleshy plot to play around with plus veritable villains to boot.First things first, this is either the first film or at least the first film in my recent memory that I've seen where the main villain was given so little to do. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) the secondary villain did his part and shined doing so but Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) king of the the dark elves was just wasted in his role in spite of him seeming so sinister and ruthlessly wicked in his introduction and initial scenes.Another footfall was the level of authenticity of Jane Foster's (Natalie Portman) possession, I mean she seemed possessed but if the great power within her was as strong as it was described by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) then it should have been shown to all but consume her and she should have been given some scenes in which she went over to the dark side and wreaked so much havoc. Sure she caused the death of Frigga (Rene Russo) but it wasn't an insidious act brought about by her possession. And speaking of Frigga, her funeral was one of the most beautiful send-offs ever captured on celluloid, just wish her sons would have mourned her properly and ruthlessly avenged her death. Darcy (Kat Dennings) Jane's trusty sidekick was her usual funny self but there was something off with her acting and even her humor at times. Kenneth Branagh really did a great job in directing her in part 1 where she was on her top game but unfortunately Alan Taylor was unable to capture the essence of this funny and witty character, instead he made her look hapless.Finally, for those who haven't seen 'Marvel's The Avengers' I suggest you do before watching this because there are so many references to the film during the course of 'Thor: The Dark World' that you might find yourself lost at times or at least wondering what they are on about. Though I will say that if you stayed for until the credits of 'Thor' finished rolling, you'll get a sense of why Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) is the way he is in this film.

Moonlight is one of the most beautifully told stories of this decade. The camera work used in this film is like never before it has some of the best camera work since Children of Men. The film has a brilliant and beautiful way of using It's camera as a character. The cast is incredible every single one of them giving layered and beautiful performances there is not one bad or decent performance they're all fantastic. The three talented actors that play Chiron are all equally brilliant in their own ways playing the character of Chiron perfectly. Mahershala Ali as the drug dealer is possibly the best performance in the film he is perfect and Naomi Harris has a brilliant supporting role.This film flairs with originality and a unique style of telling It's story. There are some extremely depressing parts in this film involving the second act which nearly made me tear up and there are some sad parts in the 1st and third act as well. I absolutely love the open wold atmosphere Moonlight creates which many films try to do but don't succeed where as Moonlight succeeds at sucking you into It's dark world. Some of the long tracking shots most notably the opening scene are filled with realism and beauty and it sucks you into the characters and the world. There are some parts where the film asks you what would you do If you where Chiron? It puts you in the place of Chiron which I found brilliant. After watching this film if Barry Jenkins keeps this up then he will be known as one of the modern great directors. This film is not only the best film of the year It's one of the best films of this decade. It's a powerful beautiful and metaphorical film that is an absolute essential viewing for any film fan. This film truly floored me in pretty much every aspect. There aren't enough words I can say that'll do justice to this film so check it out at you're nearest theater you won't regret it. 10/10

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" follows sassy and unsuspecting cheerleader Buffy (Kristy Swanson), a simple L.A. girl who spends her free time shopping and socializing in the mall food court. But when she finds herself responsible with the taking down bloodsucking demons from hell under the eye of a newfound guardian (Donald Sutherland), her extracurricular activities take a serious hit.Something of a cult film today, and the launching pad for a series of actors (including lead Kristy Swanson, and co-stars Hilary Swank and David Arquette)—as well as birthing the wildly popular series—"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a heady brew of teen comedy and vampire splatter-lite. I'll make it clear: this is definitely a corny flick, and Joss Whedon's script takes place in an alternate reality where vampires and Valley Girls can and do co-exist. In a lot of ways, it feels like an eighties movie, akin to something "Fright Night" but far less sinister. Whedon's script is humorous in the right places, and Swanson plays the spunky titular character with an appropriate pep. A young Luke Perry is the high school bad boy/hunk and looks the part probably more than he plays it, but his performance is fine. The presence of Paul Reubens and Donald Sutherland lend the film more credibility than it probably deserves, although Sutherland does feel somewhat out of place here; regardless, you can't knock a film for having Donald Sutherland as a part of its cast.All in all, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a fun and energetic offering of late eighties teen comedy with a splash of vampire blood and some fantastic one-liners; it's a ridiculous, alternate world fantasy, but a fun one at that. It does a fantastic job at meeting the crosshairs of horror and comedy without steering itself into too serious territory. 7/10.

What can be said about Remember The Titans? Honestly, this movie has just about everything. The movie takes place at a time when racism was still very much at large in the United States, especially in the state of Virginia at T.C. Williams High School. Through all of this, Coach Herman Boone, played by the iconic Denzel Washington, is tasked with the large order of getting white and African American football players to co-exist well together. The film deals with racism, stereotypes and obviously athletics. One thing that worked very well were the memorable characters in the film. If you've seen the film, there's no way you could ever forget Gerry Bertier, Julius Campbell, Petey Jones, The Rev, Big Louie and definitely Sunshine. Good directors and producers know that to put a film over the top you need good characters that you can connect with and producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Boaz Yakin do just that.Being a college student, Remember The Titans is definitely a movie I will want my children to see one day. The lessons they will learn from viewing this film are priceless, and they can't miss out on an all- time classic sports movie.

People are weak and those that seem weakest might in fact be the strongest, you can't tell until the end.In most American movies we are used to seeing strong characters that fall into certain simple categories, as if we are too stupid to understand that people on film can be like people in real life. Villains have to be wholly bad and heroes have to be flawed just enough to make them "likable" but still they are good through and through.These people are more like people in real life. They are perhaps good at their jobs but otherwise weak, they change their mind, they mess with each other's heads, they say they love one person and they have sex with each other anyway or with a hooker and say it didn't mean anything (maybe it didn't). They love one person and want to be with them until they prove to be too demanding or needy then they turn or return to someone else who wants them.Some characters fail when given a chance for greatness (Law's writer) and some have no career ambition and just want to live their life (Portman). The interplay between these people is riveting and the whole thing seems almost live, like watching a play.I recommend this movie highly just for the interplay between the characters, which is really all this movie is about. There are no heroes or villains, just people.

While the decision to split Kill Bill, originally intended as a three-hour epic tale of revenge, into two separate movies was greeted by fans with accusations of greed. Whether this is true or whether the full version of Quentin Tarantino's homage to 70's exploitation was simply too much to consume in one sitting, it actually turns out to be a masterstroke. Volumes 1 and 2 incorporate two vastly different styles, both of which allow Tarantino to fully indulge his love for kung-fu movies and spaghetti westerns with ample time and care. These are two different movies, never forgetting that the character linking them together is Uma Thurman's determined The Bride.Having dispatched O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) in the first film, we first meet The Bride as she drives to her final target - Bill (David Carradine). To even consider this a spoiler would be failing to grasp the movies Tarantino is tipping his hat to, and the director makes a point of this by constantly shifting around the time-line. It's not so much about if she'll achieve her goal, but just how cool it will be when she does. Bill remained off screen for the bulk of Volume 1, seen either stroking his samurai sword and talking menacingly off-camera, but we meet him in his full glory almost instantly in Volume 2, as we are shown an extended version of the events that left The Bride shot in the head and left for dead.First though, she must face Budd (Michael Madsen) and the one-eyed Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). Budd is a tough, hard-drinking redneck working as a bouncer when he's not clumsily making margaritas in his trailer, and he is given a generous amount of screen-time and isn't let down by Madsen's gravelly performance. Similar to Tarantino's early films Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994), Budd's story is given a patient build-up before the burst of inevitable violence, portraying him as a beaten man awaiting his death at the hands of the woman he knows is coming for him. Just when his fate seems sealed, Tarantino slaps us in the face and turns his protagonists fortunes on their head, allowing for some down-time as we flash-back to The Bride's training with the formidable Pai Mei (Gordon Liu).Pai Mei's chapter is the entire saga's crowning achievement, full of ridiculous crash-zooms and beard stroking that manages to poke fun at the genre, while at the same time warmly embracing and even transcending it. This leads The Bride to her face-off with Elle, which is a scene of such ferocity, humour and sheer bad-assery that it more than makes up for the creeping pace. As Bill, Carradine is a revelation, with Tarantino once again pulling an iconic actor out of obscurity to riff on the type of role they became famous for in the first place to deliver the performance of their career. An early version of the script had The Bride and Bill duelling to a sunset backdrop, but the low-key scrap opted for instead seems more fitting. Towards the climax, it seems that Tarantino is struggling with how to end his epic tale of revenge, but some minor bumps don't derail what is undoubtedly the most Tarantino-y of his catalogue, and certainly his most all-out fun.

A rare instance where a good book was developed into a fascinating and thought-provoking movie. Into the Wild makes you feel like the characters in a book talking to you. The movie depicts a Hippie's (wise beyond his age) perspective in experiencing life; his hatred of judging & controlling behaviors in people. The protagonist, Christopher McCandeless conveys lack of adventure as the root cause for all boredom associated with mundane lifestyles. He urges to live life to the fullest and don't get caught up in conventional style of living.Every scene is an epic with most beautiful locations; every performance is noteworthy; every spoken word is a quote. Background score and songs are none less than scintillating. Got tragic climax but plenty of takeaways assured like - "Don't be in the line of societies expectations and be happy within yourself". Overall Review: A movie that can be preserved like a book to watch over & over

'Shame' is an exceptional film, the kind which doesn't come around too often. More than a film, it's an education. Director Steve McQueen may be modest about his intentions ('All a director can do is hope to start a conversation'), but 'Shame' is, to my mind, a cinematic landmark. It lifts the lid on sexual addiction and presents it every bit as deleterious as any other addiction.Snubbed by their native UK, McQueen and his screenwriter Abi Morgan (who wrote the less interesting 'The Iron Lady') went to New York, a place where creativity still means something, and were embraced. A Turner prize-winning artist by trade, McQueen has taken to film like a wunderkind. His esteemed first film, released in 2008, was called 'Hunger'. Its topic caused controversy (it dramatises the IRA member Bobby Sands' 1981 hunger strike), but it established McQueen as a serious filmmaker. Now, with his lead from that film (Michael Fassbender), McQueen has created a sad, honest, brutal film of enormous power.Fassbender, here and elsewhere an acting powerhouse, plays Brandon Sullivan, a thirty-something-year-old professional, working for a New York advertising company. Everything about him shouts success. His sleek apartment, designer clothes and mod-cons - he couldn't do any better. But Brandon keeps a shameful secret: he's a sex addict.He organises his life around a routine of sex, sex and more sex. Work is no obstacle. When he gets the urge, he relieves himself in the staff toilet. At home, he accesses his Pandora's Box of porn to satisfy his craving: adult magazines, dirty DVDs, internet porn, on-line strip shows.Brandon's boss (James Badge Dale) is more like his best buddy. He's also a sex addict, but because he does the whole drinks and dinner thing we accept him as a typical bloke. At work, both are vehement professionals; away from the office they're sexual predators, living only to chase girls.Carey Mulligan plays Sissy, Brandon's estranged sister. Her depiction of a bruised young woman with a dark history ('We're not bad people, we just come from a bad place') is profound in its brilliance. There's a whole back story we never see or hear of but we know exists just by the way Brandon and Sissy react to one another. Something happened in their lives which has caused their relationship to be untenable.McQueen has a fluid way of telling a story; 'Shame' doesn't pause for breath. Each scene is more alluring than the next. It is photographed in varying shades of icy blues and dull greys which, together with melancholy music, mirror the colour and sound of Brandon's psyche.McQueen likes to linger on scenes he knows which will be remembered. Take the one where Sissy sings an unhurried rendition of 'New York, New York'. How many directors would have removed a verse or two? Or concluded it with a premature fade-away? Not McQueen. He allows Mulligan to sing the whole song. And why not? Her voice is terrific.Or another scene, where Brandon dines with a girl he considers his next conquest. The writing of this arresting scene is superb – so nuanced and yet completely realistic and revealing. It's also ominous because this one scene explains the point of 'Shame': Brandon could be any one of us, an outwardly ordinary person, harbouring a dirty little secret.The sex is shocking only because it's natural-looking (I wonder if any of it was real?). It has no likeness to any of the sanitised sex we normally get. This film shows an addiction, not a fetish. It isn't ecstasy on Brandon's face, it's pain. In one scene, while midway through sex, Brandon stops and moves away, disgusted with himself. Why? Because it as that point he realises he doesn't want sex, he needs it.The film takes a sinister turn after Brandon and Sissy have a particularly vicious argument. McQueen creatively merges three scenes to produce an effect that is at once profoundly disturbing and deeply sad.McQueen is different because he says what he thinks. When asked what he said to his actors to make them do the things we see, McQueen was offended by the question. He replied along the lines of, 'I don't consider them to be doing anything extraordinary. Actors should have no boundaries. If they don't feel comfortable doing what I tell them to, then I don't want to work with them'. Now, there's a director I could get used to.www.moseleyb13.com

The film overall has it's fair share of holy s**t moments that defy all levels of credibility, even for a comic book/sci-fi/fantasy movie. That whole business about the Aether winding up in Natalie Portman's body was just a little too much to wrap my head around, especially after it was assured that the heroes of Asgard buried it so deeply to avoid detection by the Dark Elves.Probably the best way to approach this film is to just sit back and get transported between the realms of Earth and Asgard without thinking too much about it. As an actioner there's plenty of it. As a story, there's just too much going on with events seemingly occurring because they were written that way instead of there being a rationale for them. I mean, one minute Thor's hand is cut off and then it's back again - wait a minute, what!? And with the emphasis on the Dark Elves I found a lot of Asgard suspiciously resembling places seen before in Rivendell. If there's going to be a Thor III, maybe a little more thought needs to go into it.

I knew this was going to be a good film before I watched it, (which is always dangerous because instantly expectation is very high). I don't know why so many IMDB members have given this film a slatting, I thought it was incredible. The direction was spot on, (initially I was dubious, but I got used to the filtered lenses) the acting was fantastic, Benecio Del Toro's under-acting earned him a well deserved oscar, I used to not like Michael Douglas, now I think he's amazing and Don Cheadle is my new favourite actor. The story is engrossing and really hits home at the when Michael Douglas's character finally discovers his daughters problem. Imagine being a parent and finding out something like that. An astonishingly powerful film that will leave you thinking about it for days afterwards. Out of the 200 or so movies I've voted on, only 16 have got 10 out of 10, and this is one of them.

It must be an extreme challenge to depict such horrible detail on film. Especially when the story is true. The musical component gives this story a hopeful reality others don't share. It makes you feel starved and cold, alone and chased by evil. Even minutely hopeful.Many people think "enough already" and often turn away from "Holocaust movies" since each is painful to watch. Don't do that or mankind increases its risk of global genocide. Watch this no matter what and be frightened by historic reality. Chopin, Beethoven and Bach will revive your spirit as you never imagined. Participate in making peace.

I wasn't around for 80's slasher fare but the 90's slashers are appearing to be quite respectful. Scream surprised me and so did this gem. Maybe because I was so hyped to see this movie. The rewatch value is great. The killer is the Jason Voorhees of the nineties and you don't find out who he/she is until the final few minutes and you discover the motive. They are after the four who accidentally murdered someone the year before and he/she is out for revenge by getting them back for the murder.

Well ... In fact I always like this kind of subject, nevertheless, this movie wasn't as I expected at the begin. My first thought was a comparison between this movie and Lord of the Rings, and I must tell you that this movie is very poor comparing with Rings movie.In my opinion the principal actor wasn't properly chosen. In some dialogs he was experience less. I can't remember another movie where this actor participated. perhaps I don't know to much of cinema.I advise you to see the movie, but don't expect to much. I vote a 7 for this movie.see you next time. Regards, Paulo Gomes

I have been a fan of spider man forever, read the marvel comics, all the animated series and more.When they decided to do the movie back in 2001, i was very excited. When they casted Toby Macguire has spiderman i was afraid to see the movie and very disappointed. This guy has a face the tells drama, crying and sadness. When they casted Kristen Dunst that put the nail in the coffin for that movie. I just hate her has an actress. I did watch all 3 spiderman movies. The action was good, but too far a part, the whole series turned out to be a big drama, like the walking dead series, a poor excuse to be a drama. Just sad. How did we suffer for Peter Parker running after Mary Jane on all 3 movies, how did we suffer for Mary Jane mistreated by her father and a failed actress. Ha all that agony.Well i am here to tell you that this crap is all over and i am soooo glad they decided to reboot spiderman, Andrew Garfield is the perfect Peter Parker, he is cocky, he looks a tone better then Maguire, he is funny, this spiderman sort of dropped the drama and got into the action right away. OK they could have spent a bit more time with the morphing into spiderman that was very very quick, they did less character development, but i rather have that then all 3 other spiderman movies, and all that dull drama.The lizard is amazing, the effects are amazing and i really hope they continue the series with all theses actors, finally we had to wait all that time for a decent spiderman movie. Way to go the reboot is far better then all that drama crying crap we been subjected too in all 3 other spiderman. Three thumbs up

I was smitten by several of the brothers' other work (Big Limbouski, Miller's Crossing,O Brother, Where Art Thou? Raising Arizona), and was primed to enjoy this much hyped film. The idea of the film is a simple joke: what if you set a grim tail of desperation in the banal setting of Minnesota. Characters would be wonderful because of their grit and pedestrian nature in extraordinary circumstances.Done well, such characterizations would do away with a need for a compelling plot. Sadly, despite fine acting, the characters aren't compelling, leaving the plot to plod on to its inevitable conclusion -boredom. Joel Coen has left me wondering why he bothered to make this film, with all the charm of a drunk-driving accident.Fargo's only saving grace is that it is ever so slightly more tolerable than Intolerable Cruelty.

i haven't watched this film in about 3-4years, only watched the film once and cant remember the details of the film too clearly...what i do remember however is the film gave me goosebumps all over and after having watched the film its gave me the same sort of sensations i had after watching a film like shawshank redemption...and it takes a good film for me to credit it. i remember thinking to myself 'is this really Costner?'...utterly fabulous and i really must credit Costner for playing such an important part in such a wonderful film. for those who have not watched...please do...u will not be disappointed. i think i will try to purchase the film on DVD!!! Love it... go and rent it or next time it is on television please watch it!!don't let me down.

I'm surprised to see that part 2 got such a low rating. Actually, out of the 4 movies that came out as of now, it by far my favorite.It has a certain story that it follows through the movie. It has some organization, and you can see that some thought has been put into the script. The entire plot and characters are much more tied together.The others (I am primarily talking about part 4) just seem like a disorganized pile of spoofs and jokes. You could reedit and reorganize the movie and it would be the same. I have to say that part 4 is my least favorite part. 3/10 for part 4.7/10 for part 2

After seeing 'Wind River' I felt compelled to write a review since it was a beautiful movie that tells a hauntingly sad story of an even sadder reality that befalls many Native women in the U.S. With great attention to detail and atmosphere this gripping story line is told which is based on factual events and which reveals the untold truth of the disturbing disappearance of Native American women from their reservation lands. Especially because so few people outside of the Native community know about this horrid reality I find this film to be of utmost importance.Nevertheless the acting, the dialogue and the directing are all of superb quality which created a dramatic film of intense sincerity and that is emotionally touching. Definitely highly recommended viewing even if you just want to see a suspenseful crime thriller, fortunately this film essentially offers a compelling insight into one of America's hidden tragedies.

Visually, I loved this movie, it has moments that are astonishing for my eyeballs. However, for me, to really enjoy a movie, I need a good story, well told. This is where things go flat for me in the current Blade Runner. The Vangelis musical score in the original is magical, this one sounds like many distant mic drops in an echo chamber, and never once adds to the picture. I was especially sad for this, as the original was a near-perfect constant blend of audio, visuals and story.First key item, I think we can all agree that the movie is simply too long, filled with far too many long moments of nothing happening, nobody speaking, actors staring off into space, possibly wondering when somebody was going to yell "Cut!". I think honestly, it can be at least 40 minutes shorter, and all elements would remain 100% intact, but audiences would be far happier. This is one instance where I think the final cut version on BluRay should be maybe 90 minutes.Second, I find that this story is told in a very fractured way, daring the audience to somehow stitch the random and poorly sketched scenes together to make an appealing tale. There are so many non sequitur moments, I was baffled by what the screenwriter's real intent was. I loved some scenes just for the visual, but was really not so wowed by the story-telling. Yes, I see the story, but don't be concerned if it doesn't gel for you. Finally, movies are greatly helped by being about something, having an engaging story to tell. Despite being an avid sci-fi and movie fan, I can honestly say I do not know the purpose of this story. I get some story elements, I see how they eventually tie together, but at the end, I can't help but wonder if this was the best way to tell it or if it is even actually there. There are SO many plot gaps and missing parts, I almost felt like making up a few as the story unwound, just so it would be more enjoyable. The original had a powerful story, very well told and acted, but I just can't say that in this version.So, I say seven, but only because some of the visuals are so good. Honestly, as a story, this is working hard to be a 5. This is a very bad trend in modern movie making, lots of flash and high priced talent, but just not enough story and substance to make it worthwhile. For me, the scotch drinking dog was the best story moment, which is not such a great endorsement.I was so disappointed to see this. I even watched the original the week before so I could be sure to correctly appreciate the new version and the complex world it is set in. It didn't help so much.

I've always heard of the genius of this movie and finally had a chance to watch it. I just don't get the hype - or the comedy. People talk about the dialogue all the time. Sorry but I found the dialogue awful, lines delivered none stop with absolutely no timing and filled with sophomoric attempts at humor. I like a good dick joke now and then just like the rest of the world but the lines were delivered with almost no thought to the punch line. The funniest part of the movie is the cat and the fact that every customer that comes in either buys a pack of cigarettes, asks if they're open or both. Other than that this movie has almost no redeeming value.

(Please note that my comments are based upon the director's cut DVD.)Zack Snyder was either extremely brave or incredibly foolhardy--maybe a little bit of both--to take on the unenviable task of adapting Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's Watchmen to the screen. Many people--including Moore himself--considered the source material impossible to transfer to film, and after viewing this well-intentioned, mostly faithful, but emotionally flat version of the graphic novel, I'm convinced that they were right.Still, it's not all bad. Snyder, cinematographer Larry Fong, and their teams give us a visually rich feast that fully realizes the world of the graphic novel... and then some. The acting is, for the most part, top notch, with Jack Earle Haley's Rorschach and Jeff Morgan as the Comedian being the stand outs. Everyone else carries their roles well, with the exception of Malin Ackerman, who while easy on the eyes doesn't bring enough emotional depth to her role as Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II.And to me, it's that same lack of emotional heft which is the main problem with this film. Snyder et al attempt to be as faithful to the graphic novel as they can, but inevitably they have to leave some things--actually, a lot of things--out. By packing the film full of all the characters of the source material, they do justice to none of them, leaving their stories feeling shallow.Don't get me wrong, I'm not some fan-boy decrying the loss of his favourite scene from the comic, like those who criticized the Lord of the Rings movies for leaving out Tom Bombadil. It's just that all the characters' stories feel rushed; even if I hadn't read the original material I would have sensed that there was a lot, too much in fact, that we weren't being shown. We don't see enough of Dan's and Laurie's relationship developing; we don't get to see enough of Rorschach's past, nor the growing horror of his therapist as he's slowly dragged into the vigilante's world; we don't see enough of Dr. Manhattan's gradual disconnect from the world and the people in it; we don't see enough of Laurie's repugnance for the Comedian. As a result, I felt interested but unmoved as events in the film transpired. I wasn't bored, as Watchmen is almost always visually intriguing, but I never felt emotionally involved.Ironically, it's when Watchmen strays from its source material that it's at its best. For example, the best action sequence in the film was when Silk Spectre II and Night Owl II take on several prisoners during a riot--a scene that doesn't occur in the comic, not to that extent. Also, in the film, Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl, goes down fighting (a scene which I think was added for the DVD version), which is true to and evocative of his past as a masked adventurer, making his death all the more affecting, because he's not just fighting a group of thugs, he's combating an enemy he can never defeat: old age. And the film's ending achieved something I would not have thought possible: it improved on Alan Moore's original finale. Watchmen's concluding plot twist is a logical outcome from all that transpired before it, and it seems like it would have been more believable than the graphic novel's mock alien invasion.However, without a proper investment and anchor in the lives of the underdeveloped characters, the ending, as good as it is, leaves one feeling flat and unmoved. There were too many characters for us to get to know, so we don't really get to know any of them; as a result, we don't feel deeply about what happens to any of them. I mentioned above that Watchmen is often at its best when it departs from the original. Perhaps it fails because it didn't do this often enough. Perhaps Snyder should have been even braver and focused on a smaller number of characters and fewer plot points. The result would not have been as true to the graphic novel, but it probably would have been a better movie.

I came into the theaters thinking that this was going to be a strange movie about revenge--it's not. It is a great movie one that starts fast and keeps its suprising pace of action and intelligence throughout the whole movie. It starts out with Edmond Dantès (James Caviezel) and his friend Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce) in a fight scene, making a person think that this will be a good buddy flick, but things turn so richly around. Dantes is asked to carry a letter by Napoleon Bonaparte during his stay with him. It turns out that it was a letter of treason and Mondego and the first mate of the ship Dantes was made Captain of become jealous and accuse him of treason. Dantes is thrown in a prison, where he is tortured for many years , his fiance marries his friend, and Dantes meets a new friend Abbé Faria (Richard Harris). He then becomes literate and cleverly escapes from jail, along with his "man" Jacobo (Luis Guzmán), who he spared in a fight, he gets revenge upon all those who framed him under the identity of "The Count of Monte Cristo" he does not kill his framers, but give them punishments worse than death, suffering. This movie uses intelligent plots of revenge (that may sound weird), and great fights and action throughout the entire film. This is one of my favorite films of all time, and I hope that it is as enjoyable for others as it was for me.

Many will walk out of this film disgusted for one of two reasons:1. The film failed to be The Sixth Sense 2.2. The film was trying too hard to be The Sixth Sense 2.In fact, it is the audience that wants so bad to see The Sixth Sense 2 that many are not going to be able to appreciate this film for what it really is, or understand the comments it makes about our own fascination with and need for heroes. This is a much more cerebral film than its predecessor. It is slow-moving, deliberate, and cautious. This is very much a drama with strange, supernatural undertones. And those undertones are very subtle. While the previous film was a mind game with the audience, this is a mind game between the characters.The ending does have a twist, yes, but nowhere near the kind of twist The Sixth Sense had. It doesn't even try to duplicate that. It does change the way you look at the events you saw in the film, but not so much that you want to race back in and see it again to see if they pulled a fast one. It simply forces you try to make sense of the psychology of a certain character in the film.The one flaw to this film is the very end, where we are told the fates of two major characters. Perhaps, since the film deals with comic books, this was intended to be comic, but I don't think the filmmakers actually intended for the audience to laugh at this moment, which is what happened when I saw the film, with an audience that had, up to that point, been enjoying themselves.

Richard Cutis rolls out another sentimental, charming and brilliantly British rom com with About Time. This time, it's boy meets girl. Boy can travel in time. A romantic comedy with a time travel twist, AT has various shortcomings but is overall pleasant and reasonably well done. Richard Curtis writes and directs the film, and he shows his skill as a director as the visuals are excellent. The script has other issues, but much of the drama feels real and the jokes and funny without resorting to vulgarity. The humour's fairly original and you can't see all of the jokes coming. Things are repeated thanks to the involvement of time travel but it doesn't grow repetitive. This is a sentimental film but not in an overly cloying way and some of the dramatic moments are genuinely emotional, but in a calm, unforced sort of way. The acting is good all around, but the standout is Bill Nighy as the father, who's performance sparkles with both pathos and dry wit. AT is a touching and funny film overall, but it has several problems which become more apparent in the second half.While the sentimentality is fine, it's inevitably a bit soppy. The problem with AT is that there's not a lot of point. Once the central relationship gets going there's no conflict or threat, and instead the film goes into other underdeveloped subplots. The film drifts from event to event without actually saying much or offering any obstacles to the characters, and leaves various plot holes in its wake. AT has some rather problematic messages, and the implication that the main character could not have had his successes or his romances without the time travel is a bit offensive. A lot of the time, you can't quite see where it's going. AT certainly lacks urgency or true conflict, but it's well executed and enjoyable enough for that to be overlooked and all in all it's another triumph for Working Title. Many will enjoy this and it might even be a tear jerking movie for some. It hasn't got an awful lot of logic to it but it doesn't necessarily need it. It's no Back To The Future, but it does time travel in an interesting and less formulaic way than other time travel films.7/10

There are more words to describe how awesome this film is than IMDb allows per review so I guess you'll just have to have the short version. Serenity is not just the film adaptation of one of Fox's greatest ever series, yet another one which was cancelled and never allowed back, it's also the end of everything that the show Firefly was ever meant to be.Joss Whedon, once creator of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television show, is now such a respected creative force in film that his latest feature is none other than 'The Avengers!' How's that for a bit of "in your face, Fox, you wet bag of poop"? Because Serenity is part film adaptation/part sequel to the series, I don't have to explain both to pitch this to you but what I will recommend is that you watch Firefly first. The boxset is as cheap as any new single DVD now and since the show was as well made as any modern film, it's much more rewarding to develop your love of the best characters ever thrown together before this film salutes them the most befitting farewell ever made.What would you get if you took the crew of the Millennium Falcon, took out all the silly Muppet-derived characters out and replaced them with characters out of a Wild West movie and had someone like comic book writer Garth Ennis writing the story? The crew of the Serenity are one of the most mixed up and conflicted bunch of people ever thrown into the same boat. Captain Malcolm Reynolds and his First Mate Zoe are war veterans on the losing side of the biggest battle in the universe, where the independents refused to bow down to the capitalist control of the corporate Alliance. They lost and now still refusing to bow down, they live as outlaws on the fringes of space, doing odd jobs to get by and their rag tag crew are along for the ride because other than not having lives elsewhere, they're now also the most wanted criminals in the universe.Housing two wanted runaways, a young doctor and his mentally disturbed sister who has been experimented on, they're now on the run from the Alliance's covert operative, not knowing that they're harbouring the only living test subject in a bid to create the universe's greatest weapon. But what they don't know is that she is the key to the darkest secret ever kept by the Alliance, which involves the existence of space's most feared creatures, the Reavers; a race of people gone mad on the edge of space who rape, murder and cannibalise everything in sight.Serenity manages to improve all you could ever love about Firefly and most of all, it ups the ante on everything you ever loved about the show while taking time to explain in almost geeky detail everything that remained untold after the show's cancellation. It's characters and actors are perfect in every way, old and new.Nathan Fillion (Saving Private Ryan, Two Guys, A Girl & A Pizza Place, Slither) as Mal applies every method in his inventory as an actor to make you root for him and the crew, to laugh, to cry and to literally rave at the screen as one of the greatest antiheroes in film and television history takes his fight to an army he could never defeat. He's not the brightest when it comes to relationships and understanding people and that's where his comedy is based but otherwise he's serious enough to give you goosebumps.Acting veteran Adam Baldwin (Full Metal Jacket, Independence Day, Chuck) brings back his uniquely insensitive bully Jayne Cobb with the kind of acting prowess that you don't find in most mainstream actors. His ability to make despicably horrible people hilarious and for people to like him for being a bastard is why he's a legend to those who know him.Alan Tudyk (Dodgeball, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil) as Wash, the unwitting, neurotic ace pilot gets to show off his acting abilities greatly in this adaptation, more so than in most episodes of the series but then again so does everybody else on board.With a crew of nine, five men and four women, Mal is the odd one out as the conflicted and lonely leader of the pack and Whedon's mastery of every character and how they interact, is his greatest gift. Thanks to his creative control and their real life friendships, they are all a bona fide crew and yet each a shining star in their individual rights.The art direction and overall graphic design of Serenity are flawless, sporting action on a massive, MASSIVE scale and still managing to keep the film firmly rooted in reality, which is almost an impossibility for today's CGI choked science fiction action adventures.This film is everything any film alike should resemble; intelligent, dramatic, hilarious, exciting, tragic and poetic. You will not see anything like it again maybe unless Whedon decides to make a sequel just for the sake of a family get together. Watch it as soon as you get the chance but please see the series first!

Big Fish is more than a movie, but a deeply woven piece of life and symbolism. Every line and every character holds some symbol of life and the journeys we take. Tim Burton has created a masterpiece that will be remembered for a long time. The acting was amazing, Ewan McGregor plays the perfect part. Many people find this film very confusing and weird, but if you look and follow the film slowly in your mind, you can see how every piece of fiction from his father holds some significance, which eventually leads to a stunning climax. Big Fish is my #1 film of the year. Mystic River and Master and Commander hold no ground. Please see this film and see if you can get as much out of it as I did.

I have high respect for Peter Jackson for managing to direct three great films based on the Lord of The Rings (abbreviated as LOTR from here on) by J.R.R. Tolkien, a fantasy epic that some deemed unfilmable. So, years ago, I was naturally excited to hear that Jackson had decided to produce adaptation of another Tolkien masterpiece, LOTR prequel "Hobbit - there and back again", and had chosen Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy films, Pan's Labyrinth) as the director.Del Toro worked on the film for a while but apparently thought it was too big a challenge and left the project. Peter Jackson saved the production by once again taking the role of director, and at first intended to make a two film adaptation of the Tolkien novel. Whatever the reason was for Jackson's initial refusal of sitting on the director's seat - perhaps he was busy with King Kong or tired as he mentions many times in the DVD extras of the latter two of the LOTR films, or just thought Hobbit was best left for someone else - I think it would have better been a decision to keep.With the "Hobbit - an unexpected journey" it feels like Peter Jackson is trying to play safe by bringing us a very LOTR-feeling experiene, with similar grandiose music playing to similar helicopter shot imagery of a fellowship travelling through majestic landscapes, and what seem to me be dwarf versions of Aragorn (Thorin) and Legolas (Kili). The film lacks distinct creative spark and soul, and it seems like it's trying to suck the soul out of the LOTR films. I think Peter was very uninspired, perhaps because of tiredness, and he uses LOTR as a director's reference point far too much. To me, "An unexpected Journey" is a dwarfed down version of the first LOTR film in many respects.Instead of two films as originally planned, we get three. Tolkien's Hobbit is a relatively short fairytale, shorter than any of the novels in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Three 3 hour films are justified for the Lord of the Rings, but not for the Hobbit. At 169 minutes, "Unexpected Journey" is just too long. "There and back again" feels thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread, to quote Bilbo Baggins from the first Lord of The Rings film.For the first hour or so, not much happens in the way of plot advancement: A hobbit named Bilbo Baggins receives thirteen dwarf guests and one wizard and they eat. The high points of the first hour are a prologue about the Dwarf kingdom and a dwarf chant. The rest of the film is mostly about chases, cliffhangers, charges, and yells. They are delivered with pompous instrumental music and sinister visuals that would have perhaps worked if Tolkien's Hobbit was an epic with apocalyptic tones like Lord of The Rings. However, Tolkien's Hobbit is a fairytale about thirteen dwarfs and a hobbit and a wizard on a way to reclaim a treasure and home from a dragon.Tolkien himself has stated that he created the Lord of the Rings because there was no national epic for the Great Britain. Hobbit, in contrast, is more similar to the fairy tales he created as bedtime stories for his children. The Hobbit story does have epic elements but for this film at least, it is my opinion that there is a mismatch between content and execution here.One of the big challenges for the Hobbit was to make the thirteen dwarfs of the tale work cinematically. The Dwarf challenge is similar to the one Walt Disney faced with the Snow White. With major film length limitations and lots of dwarfs, Disney decided that the film would get a boost of liveliness if each of the dwarfs were given a distinct personality, a caricature, and named after their characteristic.As with Disney's Snow White, the dwarfs of Hobbit are very distinct from one another, but two major issues arise, at least for me. First is that they don't match my mental image of "dwarf". Regarding features like body language and mentality, the dirty dozen just feels too "human". I think Jackson missed a comical gold mine here. What is supposed to be fun in this film is that the dwarfs are really hungry, but that doesn't quite cut it, especially since there's no "second breakfast" kind of funny quips as with the hungry hobbits in the first LOTR film.The second major issue has to do with the simple story of Tolkien which the film stays true to. As distinct as the dwarfs here are, it is all the more harrowing that the differences between the dwarfs that cost a lot of introductory time to establish, don't shape the story at all. Now if i watched the film carefully enough, the truth is that there are no twists or turns that would depend on the individualities of the dwarfs, except for one of them. For a short children's animation like Snow White that's not a major issue, but for a three hour film that's a major negative.Basically all of the dwarf characters could be rolled into one, preferredly Thorin Oakenshield, the Aragorn of dwarfs and leader of the gang, without creating a need for Gollum-esque divided personality.I have to balance the criticism by saying that Peter Jackson, a true craftsman and a technological innovator, is a perfectionist when it comes to creating worlds. Certain aspects of the film are really impressive when judged on their own, especially the visual design and it is also the reason why people who are not Tolkien fans might think this is a film worth seeing. I'm planning on watching the film for a second time in theatre with HFR technology to see if that brings a new level of immersion to an already impressive looking film.

I suppose it was inevitable I would be waiting for something astronomically mind blowing in animation and fun when it came to The Lego Movie. The hype around this has been unfathomable. Full blown adults told me "the best movie they've ever seen." I heard nothing but how hilarious and it was and the cheeky nods to other films so I was eager to watch it. I don't think I was "hyped" but I certainly had expectations. Now don't get me wrong, The Lego Movie is fun and cute but I had some definitive issues with it and I am completely convinced now that this one of those movies that sort of mass-hypnotizes audiences and everyone sheep life jumps on to the bandwagon. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too but not for this one. I just didn't see the glorious animated feat that everyone else did. I honestly think the film has a distinctive dark, sarcastic undertone and I felt like they were often actually making fun of naivety and the pure quality of childhood toys. It felt a little jaded in that way and maybe that's what adults liked so much about it in some weird way? I guess I like my animation to be cuddly cute with sweet morals and this wasn't it. It has a moral but is it showing it in a sarcastic way? The humour is okay...couple of good chuckles but roll in the aisles? Far from it. I thought the script felt a little generic and nothing really fresh in the idea.The cast is a whose who of Hollywood comedians led by Chris Pratt as our unexpected hero Emmett. Pratt is very good and absolutely captures the right tone for Emmett. If they did one thing right it was creating Emmett to be the focus of the story because he feels like an iconic animated hero. Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie, Will Ferrell and Morgan Freeman all stood out for me in their vocal performances of various sizes throughout the film. There are a host of other Hollywood stars doing voices and they all do very good. There are a ton of characters in the movie, this is both a pro and a con for the film. It often feels too packed and because there are so many characters you get flashes of real iconic characters for only a moment and they're hardly used or used poorly (Superman and Green Lantern for instance.) How many ambiguous gay jokes can you pack into a couple of short scenes. The film is a mish-mash of characters that most people absolutely love. I found it just a tad too mish mashed for my liking. Still its very well casted and clear that everyone had a good time doing it. Its also nice to see studios put aside their differences to feature characters from Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, DC Universe, Star Wars and so on.Co-Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have a decent history in animation having worked on Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. You will also notice though that most of their experience is in adult features including their animation having worked on Clone High. So their style of direction would be definitely geared more towards adults. I don't mean to say The Lego Movie isn't appropriate for the young generation because it is!! Its an incredibly fast paced, visual thrill ride but without a ton of substance which is fine. The best scene in the film to me was actually when they leave the animated Lego world and turn to the real human world in order to save their people. Even though I had to see Will Ferrell's face (I'm not a fan) it was easily the best, unique and most well developed turn in the story. Kids will and do love the insanely frantic action and the nods to Lego building (which I honestly was sort of tired of early on in the film.) Its a decent story, a fun movie but I don't really feel like most do that it is some sort of amazing, best film of the year material. As much I despise the gimmick of 3D I would have liked to have seen this in 3D because visually it is a masterpiece!! Unfortunately for me the story lacked development, felt a little dark and jaded and didn't truly floor me the way I expected from others' reaction. However, all this being said I assure you that "Everything is Awesome" song will be rolling around in your head...for weeks. 6.5/10

My best friend got me started on the Harry Potter books, and I've read every one. The first two movies seemed pretty true to the book, but I felt this one left out some pretty important things. I understand that for a book as long as this they have to slim things down a bit to put it on film, I felt they slimed down too much. In the book you really felt the closeness Harry felt toward Sirrus, and the relationship that Sirrus, Lupin & Peter had with his father, James. I didn't really feel a sense of either in the movie. As a matter of fact, all that was said in the movie was that they were friends of his parents. This book gave the reader an idea of how much Harry is like his father, the movie never does. My biggest pet peeve about this film though, is that at the end, when Harry does the spell to hold back the Dementors, they show the white stag, but never mention it. If the person watching didn't read the book they'll have no idea what that was or why it appeared. It was also never told why Sirrus, Peter, and James turned into animal forms or that James form was a white stag. Which is why Harry sees the stag during the spell. Over all, the movie was wonderful visually, but I was very disappointed in the story. I'm not too sure I'll go to see the next movie.

SPOILERS!SPOILERS!SPOILERS!SPOILERS!At the beginning a quick resume for those who does not want to read the whole list of complaints. Definitely THE WORST of all Star Wars saga movies. I would prefer to watch full length Star Wars Clone Wars or even Star Wars Rebels instead of this. By this single movie Disney destroyed all the epic atmosphere that stand behind Star Wars.Going down to detail let me start from the high calibre guns. Even in worst of previous Star Wars movies (The Phantom Menace) you can almost feel the force. It presents itself in dialogues, style of fight and all other small elements associated either with Jedi or Sith. In this movie THE FORCE, the most important element of all Star Wars movies, is treated like a boost to natural skills that you can activate but very often charges of that boost is depleted. First scene of SWTFA is very promising. Kylo Ren, new superhero of dark side, is stopping the blaster shoot. I can't remember anyone else to be able to do it. Even more. Distracted by interrogation of captive he is still able to maintain that blast within his power. However a few minutes later he is defeated in mind duel by Ray, a new bright side hero. The problem is Rey is still not very aware of his powers. I could understand Kylo is not able to penetrate Ray's memories but the outcome of that scene is more than obvious - he was defeated. Another completely not understandable situation is when Kylo is revealing his true face. Maybe Adam Driver (actor playing Kylo) is so hungry the fame but that single moment destroyed the mystery Lucas was able to maintain throughout 3 episodes. The worst however came later. Even Darth Vader was not (at least at the beginning) so powerful he could dictate its will to all commanders of the Empire forces. On the other hand even Emperor felt awe. In case of Kylo his boss is treating him like a one of stromtrooper when confronted by general Hux. The climax of this reducing the importance of the Force is presented when Ray and Finn are fighting Kylo. First of all that fight is very chaotic and there is no dark force in how Kylo is fighting. There is also no mysticism in that fight. Compare it to famous duel of fates (Obi and Qui-gon against Darth Maul). Sorry, bad idea it is utterly incomparable. Kylo is beaten by simple storm trooper. It does not matter finally he almost kills Finn. For me it is unimaginable that apprentice of the most powerful dark side lord in the universe is not able to handle a single stromtrooper.But there are also other less important elements of the movie that makes is...tragic. Lack of Force associated with Kylo or should I say very erratic use of it is not the only problem of Kylo Ren. His behaviour is also pathetic. I can understand dark force warriors are driven by passion more than Jedi and passion which means hate is what gives them strength. However the attacks of anger in case of Kylo are super pathetic. He behaves like a kid in kindergarten whose toy was taken away. How does it comply with force control.And finally the person chosen to play Kylo. No words can describe how hopeless the choice was. He could play some role in Harry Potter but not Star Wars.The above are the most important weaknesses of SWTFA but it is not all. There are more bigger or smaller glitches that makes SWTFA very, very weak movie.

I really enjoyed this movie. It's one of two Star Trek movies that I own (the other one being the 2009 reboot), and I don't buy movies unless I plan to watch them multiple times. I really admire the production values. I love how the camera moves through the credits, circles around Remus, and homes in through the clouds to the Romulan Senate. I appreciate things such as the shadow that passes over the Enterprise as the shuttle goes down to investigate the positronic readings and the atmosphere that surrounds the planet. The shuttle landing looked very realistic including the puff of dust as it landed. I also love the buckling of the ships as they smash together, and that debris floats around when the ships separate. I think the music is fantastic. I think Tom Hardy does a great job. I love some of his lines - "You won't survive long enough to witness the victory of the echo over the voice" and "All power to the engines. Full reverse." The viceroy was wonderfully glowering and I liked his low, rumbling, menacing voice. I love his look of disgust as he turns away after giving Shinzon grief in the Senate chamber. And I love Picard's lines "She's a predator" and "Nothing would make me more proud to accept your hand in friendship, when that trust has been earned." All in all a good ride with lots of details that I really appreciated.

"Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead." Pulp Fiction has to be one of the best crafted movies of all time. Sure, it's out of order and some people (including some dear to me) got confused, but it's so well made in the sections it's presented, it deserves to be on the top of all people's best of lists.Yeah, it contains violence and a lot of it. Some language and it's excessive. And believe it or not, for being a "guy's movie" it contains full frontal male-nudity (thanks, Bruce.) But, it's creative, inventive, original and a helluva lot of fun.There's a dozen or more subplots to explore, but for the most part, it involves the zany adventures of Vincent (Travolta) and Jules (Jackson.) They're enlightened hit men or simply, employees of one Marsellus (Rhames) and they're on a mission to retrieve a golden briefcase. In the interim, they accidentally shoot someone, get shot or dance off with a drug addict.To be perfectly honest, despite the previous paragraph's spoilers, there's so much going on in this movie, it's hard to describe everything that happens. Needless to say, you MUST see this movie.It contains the following: excellent acting, great comebacks/tributes (Travolta and Stoltz amongst others,) wonderful dialogue, comedy, cinematography, soundtrack, score, originality and enormous breakthrough for a director/writer (Tarantino) who is likely to go down as one of the best directors/writers of all time.I have practically memorized the soundtrack and quotes. And even the joke involving tomatoes. It's rich and deserves an audience from the 1990s to present. Perhaps Tarantino didn't know what impact he would have with his "fictional" story. But anyone that's seen this knows what a master he was when he created this world.I have no problem for saying the following words: Alfred Hitchcock is a favorite of mine. Tarantino is drawing very near to the master Hitchcock was. As crazy as Tarantino may appear, he knows what he wants, he knows how to spin an extremely creative yarn and he doesn't seem to care if anyone else agrees. To me, I hold him in the highest respect for his visions.

Let's get the negatives out of the way: the multicolored computer-animated MYSTERIOUS ISLAND resembles a seventies Hanna Barbara cartoon. And the reason for two suburbanites venturing into a distant island has practically no set up or logic. But it doesn't matter since the adventure itself is fun and involving, and yes, completely banal – but that's not a bad thing.Teenage Sean, from JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, has a new stepfather, Hank, played by The Rock, that he can't stand. Until the muscular, surprisingly resilient ex Navy man breaks a code sent from Sean's "Vernian" (Jules Verne fanatic) grandfather, who's found the Mysterious Island the iconic author wrote about.Along the way the duo meet two essential yet, in this case, completely contrived device characters – Luis Guzman as the helicopter pilot comic relief trying way too hard, and his gorgeous daughter as Sean's romantic interest.Cut to the chase: once they arrive on the island and meet up with grandfather Michael Caine, it's all about escaping from a giant lizard, giant birds (while riding bees), and once underwater, where Nemo's submarine awaits, dodging electric eels.The suspense builds decently enough on land – if they don't get off the island in time, everything will be covered by the ocean. And it's as simple as that – so what else do you need in a live-action cartoon? For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com

I haven't read the original graphic novel yet but I sure hope it's better than the movie! All movies are of course contrived but the trick is not to make it obvious. This production is one dimensional, unimaginative and predictable. The characters are thin, unengaging and unlikely to encourage any empathy. There is no subtlety and the movie is heavily reliant on stylised violence. A successful film surprises us but Watchmen is embarrassingly predictable. Instead of an impressive, creative interpretation of a story we get something that is all technique and no substance. Immediately disappointing and ultimately immature.

The opening to the film is exquisitely shot. It carries a fantastic level of suspense and emotion that made me think that we were in the realms of greatness. I was misled. If anything, the opening to the film is the film's peak and everything subsequently meanders down hill. The story of the film, as put out in the media is of a rag tag bunch of men led by Brad Pitt on a marauding crusade into enemy territory with the sole purpose of killing as many Nazis as gruesomely as possible. And the film is, in part, about that. But there is a much more interesting story of revenge that begins in that very first sequence that I didn't feel was adequately explored, as it somehow became second fiddle to the Basterds of the title. I guess Tarantino has his pick of people to work with and that, it seems, may be his downfall. There is no doubting that in Christoph Waltz, he has unearthed a gem, but that is far outweighed by the bizarre turn of Brad Pitt and needless cameos. For some reason Brad Pitt plays his character with a conscious under bite, by which I mean it only seems to appear when he thinks about it needing to be there. Where Pitt's good friend George Clooney can excel in the screwball characterisation as a wannabe Clark Gable, Pitt flows and crashes and burns badly. Mike Myers appears in a pointless cameo and the use of Eli Roth seems questionable at best. All of this lends the film a boy's club smugness in the same way that the Ocean films seem more like a gas for the stars than the audience. So, it comes across as a big laugh-in for the actors, all, except the European trio of Waltz, Bruhl and Laurent, mugging to camera in what seems like an effort to get laughs. The dark humour and snappy dialogue of Tarantino's early movies has gone. To be replaced by laboured dialogue in the style of Tarantino – something we saw enough of in the 90s with the numerous Tarantino-esquire efforts. It felt much like a film student in the late 90's, wishing to be the next Tarantino, has gone a bit too far for his student film in trying to include snappy dialogue unrelated to the screen imagery…except this is Tarantino and it no student movie. The film also produces too many nods to Tarantino nerds (if they even exist) with the shootout where you're not sure how everyone got shot to the use of Harvey Keitel and Samuel L Jackson as voice cameos and the endless "all the characters looking down to the camera" shots that would have once made it new and exciting. It now seems a little tired and is definitely too self-congratulatory. At times the film is beautiful to watch. The cinematography is immense and one thing Tarantino does still manage to do to a high standard is choose his music well. The film covers a range of music that is often used in other film first, but does not look out of place here. The audience, however, seemed to be tuned into the humour and the style much more than me. There were laughs and guffaws as Pitt stuck out his chin and I had the general feeling that everyone was really enjoying the show. So, perhaps it was me. Perhaps I was not in the mood for it or perhaps I just didn't get it. But from the opening sequence that, to me, showed so much promise and, more importantly, showed what Tarantino is capable of, the rest became a damp squib (many of which were used throughout, as you can imagine).

So, since there are a ton of accurate reviews that describe the good "enough" and lame aspects of this movie but NOBODY points out what actually does make or break this movie. If the soundtrack was good it would actually have raised the ratings exponentially, but alas, the music supervisor completely destroyed the already weak credibility of this movie. It's a shame, but a movie teetering on being so-so and lame which has total crap cheese ball horrible music for its soundtrack should just make sure that music supervisor NEVER EVER works again, they need to follow a different calling or maybe do music for IDK, their local church or something.

This movie review isn't spoiler-free because there's nothing to spoil, the movie does that to itself. To start this out, I have nothing against an all-woman cast; if women can make a great movie, more power to them. But for anybody, male or female, to participate in making this movie, needs to reevaluate their priorities in their profession. Freaks and Geeks was Paul Feig's prime. I literally fell asleep about halfway during the movie, despite it's loud dubstep theme cover and a somewhat attempt of see-through CGI. The only character that received any laughs from the audience were at Mckinnon's character; it was as if she knew she was in a terrible movie and figured she'd make the best of it along with her sellout costars. I love the original Ghostbusters and this one just left a nasty taste in my mouth that will now surface every time I try to watch its predecessor. I beg you, don't waste your money. If you take someone on a date to see this movie they will dump you faster than this movie ended.

After seeing the previews I thought it'd be a light hearted and fun movie to watch but it just exceeded my expectations.The humor is only slightly outranked by the facial expressions, particularly those of Rider. Maximum was hilarious. A horse with a mind of his own that can do quite a number of 'stunts'.I would highly recommend this movie not only to adults but for young children as well. It's fast, exiting and very entertaining.I didn't find any parts to be 'slow going' and it certainly put a new slant on the old story of Rapunzel.A real 'feel good happy' type of movie.

But Paul Verhoeven is a revolting, greedy, pandering hack who should be ashamed of himself. He apparently isn't content to think up his own ideas for mindless hackneyed crap-drivel shoot-em-ups, he has to take an amazing premise that was ahead of it's time and drive it straight into the ground as hard as he can.By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch. What kind of a frigging monster proudly ADMITS to deliberately perverting a respected writer's work? Does this guy have a SHRED of dignity? I might be able to forgive Verhoeven if it was merely a terrible movie. But it's not merely terrible; it's insulting to a great man's legacy.Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It completely mocks his politics, discards or perverts beyond recognition all of his revolutionary technological ideas, shamelessly panders to the chest-beating Rambo watchers of the US, and throws in some nudity for kicks.The fact that this movie made more than 10-cents at the box office makes me sick. And the fact that most people who SAW it didn't even know it bore the same name as one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi ever written makes me even sicker.

Most people have commented on the brilliance of the acting in this movie. I agree with all they said. Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear and Alan Arkin are as good as we would expect them to be. Add sensitive and characterful performances from Paul Dano & Steve Carell. Spotlight the amazing Abigail Breslin as a believable little girl trying to break into the Child Glamour Business through pageants like "Little Miss Sunshine." It was when I contrasted her less than movie-star appearance with all the adult-glam of the other lacquered and made-up girls that I realized the subliminal message here.Olive's striptease is an honest (but disturbing) expose of what these pageants really are. It's only when Olive's family join her in making this into a game that we can begin cheering for her while being horrified by the hypocrisy of the whole pageant-thing.A brilliant movie!

This is a very enjoyable movie from start to end. Even the cliché'd parts are cute. I might be childish but I do like the message -- dream men are sometimes very shallow and clueless, and their less charismatic, less perfect brothers (or friends or neighbors) are oftentimes much, much more inspiring once you get to know them. Fortunately for girls, the handsome clueless bunch usually spends a lot of time sleeping or otherwise misplacing or misdirecting their charms.The movie relies on a silly premise that a good-natured lie won't be discovered, and when discovered, it won't be ridiculed. However, this premise is treated fairly. The viewer doesn't feel stupid, as the lead character, Lucy, has a silly idea which leads her to the silly lie; so it isn't only the audience who is duped -- the audience is just asked to engage in Lucy's silly idea, and explore it as if it was just a dream. And at the end, it's all good for real - since Lucy doesn't need her silly idea anymore, you feel relieved of the whole silly premise.There is plenty of chemistry between lead characters which makes the romance believable.Who is this movie for? Best fits people in their late 20's; boys might be interested if they like Sandra Bullock. She's adorable in the movie, very natural, seamless.

My impression of this movie is not one of feminist propaganda. Rather, this movie demonstrates the ease by which an individual, male or female, may become a criminal. The greatness of this movie lies in its strong writing, plot, and superb acting. While this movie could be classified by some as a typical "fugitives-running-from-the-law" formula, it has enough depth of characters and great dialogue to set it apart from other movies of its genre.Furthermore, Scott does not sugar-coat Louise's criminal act. If Louise had shot a man while he was raping Thelma, that would be the typical melodramatic drivel, suitable for the Lifetime Network. Such a script would likely climax with a courtroom scene in which Louise would be exonerated, with the assistance of a silver-haired compassionate defense attorney. Instead, Scott gives us a Louise who shoots a man: a man who has retreated from his attempt to commit a rape upon her friend. The man has backed away after seeing the gun-wielding Louise. However, when he utters offensive language, she shoots. Of course, she realizes she has no legal defense to her murder of the man, and thus, she must flee.The greatest part of this movie is the transformation of the character, Thelma. At first, Thelma, the weaker character, feels compelled to flee with Louise, though Thelma herself has committed no criminal act. Of course, she goes along with Louise, perhaps because of her own guilt and feeling of responsibility for having placed Louise in this predicament. After all, Thelma perhaps feels that she created the circumstances under which Louise felt compelled to shoot the man, due to Thelma's placing her safety in jeopardy through her drunken waltz to the alley with the bar pick-up. Perhaps, Thelma feels compelled to go with Louise, because, after all, Louise saved her from the hands of the would-be rapist, or perhaps, Thelma feels compelled to go with her simply because she has nowhere else to go. One gets the impression that Thelma lacks legal knowledge sufficient to realize that she is not complicit in the murder of the man. In any event, Thelma follows along with Louise, and through their fugitive journey, she becomes a stronger, more independent person. Davis does a wonderful job of portraying the transformation of this shrinking violet, into a bold, gun-toting criminal.This movie also demonstrates that an initial criminal act, will most likely result in subsequent criminal acts for the individual. For Louise, the criminal acts that follow in the wake of the murder, are ones of necessity--the criminal acts are a result of Louise's feeling that her life is spinning out of control. The criminal acts are miniscule in comparison to the homicide she has committed. As she has committed the most serious of crimes, what are a few robberies in comparison? However, for Thelma, the subsequent criminal acts are ones of personal empowerment---the criminal acts are a result of Louise's feeling that she is finally taking control of her own life. Thus, Scott masterfully gives us the comparative workings of the criminal mind in two individuals--one who is relinquishing control of her own life through her criminal acts, and another who is finally gaining control of her own life through her criminal acts.Finally, for those men who posted on this board who seem to find this movie unsettling, I suspect that you identify with one of the male characters in the movie, rather than Thelma or Louise. Your negative comments about this movie are telling. Perhaps, you should watch it again and discover which male character with whom you identify. You may learn a lot about yourself. I am a woman and my favorite movies are The Good the Bad and the Ugly and Patton. I identify with Blondie and Patton, despite our gender differences. The GTBTU and Patton contain no major women characters. A woman is beaten by Lee Van Cleef in one scene in the GTBTU, but no other women come to mind in that movie. As for Patton, there is a single scene with the General being surrounded by a bunch of old English biddies.In closing, I would suggest for any men or women who enjoy a good tale and fine acting, Thelma and Louise is a must-see.

There is a reason this is the highest rated movie on all of IMDb and that's because it is an amazing piece of classic American cinema and all of the accolades are well deserved. The cinematography is superb and obviously the result of a tremendous effort in teamwork by the directors of photography in concert with the grips and gaffers and all production personnel.The acting is of the highest caliber and fully believable.The casting is without question incredible.And furthermore the combination of all of these elements and how they intertwine to form the strongest cord of filmmaking possible is an amazing feat to watch play through time and time again.

As admirable as an act of courage as a work of art. How can an artist keep creating while repression and cruelty surround him? Answer: to bring some joy into people's lives. The Soviet government kept this one in the can five years. So direct, no possible editing could have changed its meaning. The whole cast and crew should get medals.

How can you write a review of Rocky and not mention the relationship between the protagonist himself and Adrian. I admit that this is an enthralling story about an underdog fighter that makes it all the way to the top yet that isn't the focus of the film. I think the point of Rocky is that it is his love for Adrian that makes him strong. At first they are the unlikeliest of matches yet he sees the beauty in her that nobody else does. This strong theme is carried throughout all five (not so much the fifth film actually) Rocky films and he makes it clear that the fame, the money, the big house doesn't mean a thing without her.You'd have to have a cold heart not to shed a tear at the end of the film when Rocky ignores the media and not shouts but screams for Adrian to come to his side.A film that will live on for decades to come!!

The Film starts out our Main Character CLYDE SHELTON is working on a new invention, we get a decent close-up of a necklace his daughter made him, which he wears as a bracelet(this symbolizes his humanity) when getting the door he and his wife and daughter are attacked, his wife raped and stabbed, he stabbed bound, helpless, his daughter is taken to a back room, were all we know is that she is killed, we jump to the trail where Jamie Fox's Character Nick Rice, assistant D.A. for Philadelphia breaks the news to Clyde that he's made a deal to get one of the two men on death row, and the other, pretty much Scot free, Clyde doesn't like that, and tries to reason with nick to go the other way and take it to trial, Nick refuses.Ten Years later, one of the men who killed Clyde's family is killed in a painful manor, aside from the painless execution he was supposed to be given by state law, they find a lead which leads them to the other man, his name is DARBY, who via Clyde escapes, unknowing to him Clyde is pulling all the strings.From this point in the movie if you haven't already guessed this is by far the most entertain and most creatively ingenious movie of the year, Pitting Clyde, an EX-BRAIN(which are better killers than spies.), puts his wit and his creativity to the dedication of destroying and re fixing the justice system to put it on a tighter leash, his initial goal is to get Nick Rice to learn consequences for his actions and to be a more severe District Attorney, Clyde admits at one point that this whole thing could've been avoided had Nick taken the case to trial win or lose, but this fails, Nick refuses to see any guilt until it is needed via the death of 6 other Assistant D.A. one whom he has a bonded relationship with as a Mentor and Teacher, who continuously questions her motive for choosing law.This film pulls no punches, and as said before is a masterpiece of intellect the likes that haven't been seen all year, or even most of last year aside from the epic DARK KNIGHT, this movie in any case a win, never slowing down and makes you feel what it wants you to feel, as an example, there are a few scenes where Nicks daughter is playing at a recital and even though you know this movie is going to be crazy, you can't help but feel a warm heart, as well when Clyde Kills a certain Character with a sniper rifle you feel nothing short of an Adrenaline rush from the sheer shock and timing of this event.All in all the only downside is the way the film ends, it particularly didn't sit right with me, but that's what keeps it away from perfection, This movie is pretty damn good, it get's all your detective senses working to find how Clyde is doing all of this or if he has someone working with him and who? 4.5/5 9.5./10 stars, i recommend it if you enjoy a good intellectual action movie

With all the great people acting in the movie, I expected something better than what I got. It was OK, but not what I expected from someone like Denzel Washington or Jodie Foster. There was a lot of pointless foul language, like the scene between Foster and the mayor of NYC. I never felt like I was on the edge of my seat, nor were there any big surprises. There was also absolutely no clue as to the motivation of the Clive Owen character in his vendetta against the Christopher Plummer character. I got a little worried when I was the only one in the the theater until about five minutes after the show started. All in all, I would rather have watched a rerun of "The Silence of the Lambs" or "The Pelican Brief".

This movie walks the line between "almost good" and "almost bad." I think it falls pretty safely on the latter side, thankfully, but boy does it push it.THE GOOD:The humor. There's about a dozen solid LOL moments in this flick. In particular, the back-and-forth between Stark and the kid really works. There's also some great bits of physical comedy and classic Starkisms.RDJr's performance. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I felt like Downey's performance in the Avengers left much to be desired. It alternated between a boring, plastic impostor of the first film's Stark and a shameless self-parody. To a lesser extent, I felt this to be the case in Iron Man 2, as well, although the character hadn't grown quite as tired yet. While it's still not on the same level as the first Iron Man, Iron Man 3 does provide the best representation of Tony Stark since. The charm is back. Job well done.THE BAD:The plot. What? On the one hand, this plot feels more at home in a 3-issue mini-arc in the comics, not something that should necessarily be carrying a feature film. It's pretty much just a bad mixture of different villainous clichés rolled into one hammy "plot." On the other hand, I found the plot to be rather poorly explained. Guy Pearce is secretly selling this new "technology" to the Mandarin because... well, the Mandarin and his cronies are willing to buy it, finding its nefarious "side effects" more desirable than the original, seemingly noble intent behind it. But then we find out that the Mandarin was simply a construction, a work of fiction designed by Pearce's character to serve his own ends. Well now I'm confused. Who's buying what? Where's the money coming from? I'm not saying these questions don't have answers, only that they weren't explained very well and at some point I felt like the film and I entered into a tacit agreement: just don't explain it anymore and I'll stop thinking about it. To its credit, the film lived up to its end of the bargain.Tonal inconsistencies. I felt like I was watching three different Iron Man movies. One was the typical mainstream superhero flick we've come to expect from Marvel movies. The other was a surprisingly absurd comedy - almost a spoof of the franchise rather than a further installment of it. For example, it's sort of hard to buy the Mandarin as a pathetically aloof actor, at least, the way it was sold to us in the movie. He doesn't seem to understand the very real violence going on. He seems like a worthless jester, which is fine... just not really the kind of person you want burdened with that kind of responsibility. He's so comically oblivious to the real happenings, that it suggests, again, a satirical tone rather than a straight one. Thirdly, I felt like part of this movie was an indie-actioner, sort of like Black's previous film, "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang." The quick- witted Stark firing out shots from his handgun while engaging in banter with Rhodes, also wielding a gun, didn't really work for me in this flick. I guess the movie felt like three ingredients thrown hastily together to create a last-minute meal. The results are what you'd expect, I suppose.The anxiety issue. It just didn't work for me. On the one hand, it felt like a less interesting version of Stark's alcohol problem, which is obviously a big issue in the comics and was dealt with in Iron Man 2. But whereas alcoholism seems totally fitting and understandable with the Tony Stark we've come to know, this anxiety issue felt like a contrivance and like something that would clearly be resolved by the end of the movie. I felt like giving the guy a hug and saying, "just hang in there, Tony, you'll be better in a couple hours." Whereas the alcoholism issue, even if done in a more nuanced way, seemed like a lasting, difficult challenge for the character. Yeah, they try to explain the anxiety attacks as something of a reaction to the wormhole in the Avengers, but whatever. It just seemed artificial.The ending. It reminded me of the kind of BS conclusion you might write during an in-class exam. You know, try to wrap things up, broaden your thesis statement a bit, tie it into some abstract ideas or themes. But I just felt like they were... BSing. Wrapping up themes that either weren't there or were too boring to have given much thought to in the first place. I guess the story was about "healing," which explains the ludicrous scene in which Tony Stark gets the shrapnel removed. Okay. A big part of the first two films was that he couldn't remove the shrapnel. I'm not saying that he never should be able to, but his story is so inextricably tied into the shrapnel, that it deserved more than a passing "Oh yeah, got rid of that" moment. Losing the shrapnel is a big deal, but it was done so easily that it came across as a comical distraction.Those are my thoughts. Thanks for reading.

If you are a recovering from being an alcoholic, don't see this movie. You'll want to drink again.The only place this movie should be shown is the New York sewer system.After watching this movie, my tv is impure. I must burn it.If you're looking for fun, don't watch this movie. Turn on the Discovery channel and watch the special on horse shoe crabs.I laughed at this movie, not with it.I feel like my soul is trying to escape my body... my skeleton is trying to run away.This is a big turd. Stinking all the way. God, I feel unclean.

i went in to this movie, expecting to be stimulated by the martial arts and/or pulled in by the plot. i got neither one. this movie put me to sleep and i have a hard time believing that everyone else thought it was incredible. it put me to sleep. the plot could not have been simpler about a girl who wanted adventure so she steals a sword and runs away. the flashback sequence was incredibly slow and boring. people just kind of jump from one roof to the next without any explanation or any indication that this is not the way things usually work. the ending could not have been any less fulfilling. in the end, as opposed to sucked in or stimulated, i was just going, "wha...?" all in all, i was very disappointed.

We often hear that what the Feds nail mafiosos on is tax evasion, rather than the substantive underlying illegal commerce. What if it was antitrust instead of tax?Gangland is exactly where you'd expect to find anti-competitive behavior, working in the shadows to extract rents. After all, unfairly treated competitors can't complain to the authorities; their recourse is instead only to violence. What's more, those competitors are often themselves taken out of play by the government, whether through transparent corruption (e.g., the legislatively and executively sponsored "war on drugs") or through opaque corruption (e.g., bribery of corrupt cops by competing gangs). Thus, the very illegality of the products in which gangs traffic makes for government-granted monopolies that incentivize the illegal behavior.As much trouble as these monopolies and oligopolies cause for incumbents, they're even more of a headache for insurgents. Hence, barriers to entry in mob-controlled industries are high. Indeed, in Coppola's 175-minute film, there's barely a suggestion that a new family could come to compete with the five, let alone that an organization other than a family could try to enter. (There is one suggestion than an existing deputy of one of the families could do a start-up.)Relatedly, the specter of boycotting by the Corleone family is ever-present. The Godfather's office is the marketplace. Demand walks in, and the Godfather farms it out to approved suppliers of murder, maiming, extortion, etc. Hence the refrain from his lieutenants, "Who(m) should I give this job to?" As an antitrust defendant, Don Corleone would likely argue that this matching of buyers to sellers is a market-promoting service, see Chi. Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (1918)—like a market maker on a securities exchange—while prosecutors would allege that, by unilaterally choosing the supplier for each transaction, he is impeding an open market rather than lubricating it. Prosecutors would background this argument with atmospherics of racial discrimination, cf. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), by the Corleones qua employer; Mike says of the family attorney, "He's a good lawyer (but n)ot a Sicilian one."Market-splitting is rampant in The Godfather. One family controls the Bronx, another Brooklyn, and so on. In a particularly apt bit of dialog, during the epic meeting of the five families, one head refers to the United States as being split into "territories." This meeting is the smoking gun of collusion amongst the five families. If they could survive evidentiary challenges, such gems as Don Corleone's "When did I ever refuse an accommodation?" would find prominent places in the prosecution's brief.The tying in Coppola's film is blatant enough to make Yale, Hack v. Yale Corp., 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000), or Microsoft, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (per curiam), blush. And the ties that bind are first and foremost family ties. Hence the brilliant opening sequence of intercutting between shadowy interiors of business deals and sun-washed exteriors of the wedding, which lingers long enough—the latter replete with multi-generational singing, dancing and tribute-paying—to make us feel we're there, part of the family. The mistake of the father whose beseeching of Don Corleone opens the film was to miss this lesson. By not investing in respect for the family upfront, by forgetting that the contract with the Godfather is a deep basket of goods and services that one locks into for the long term, he insults the CEO. Only by signing up for the whole kit and caboodle—including reciprocity of a sort and at a time to be named later—does he get into the club. Hence the plausibility of Mike's claim at the end of the film that he is imposing exile—the ultimate punishment by the market dominator—on his brother-in-law. Sonny's career as family head is doomed not just because he's a hothead but also because he forgets that ultimately it's all about family.All these shenanigans are ways of restraining trade. And how better to restrain trade than decapitate the $600,000 horse of a Hollywood producer who won't hire your guy and leave the head in his bed, to whack a Las Vegas developer who won't sell you his hotel, or to execute your competitors point blank under the mantle of family ties? While making offers that one figuratively can't refuse is generally market-promoting, making offers than one literally "can't refuse" is market-restricting.So, would going after mob commerce under the antitrust laws be an unprecedented prosecution of a monopoly that the government itself sponsored? Nope. The government unwittingly sponsors monopolists all the time, by imposing so much regulation that potential entrants don't bother. Thus the Godfather is referring to America's political organs when he says, "I believe in America. America's made my fortune." And he is speaking on behalf of countless regulatorily entrenched incumbents—from banks to taxis, Katrina Miriam Wyman, Problematic Private Property: The Case of New York Taxicab Medallions, 30 Yale J. on Reg. 125 (2013)—too.

...after watching the movie, I just sat on the chair, staring out off the window, for a long time. all kind of thoughts ran through my mind, but none could take shape. I couldn't even cry. so this is the human nature. at its best and worst... it's a sublime movie. and a terrifying one. oh, the images...the soundtrack..the performances...the story...the overall picture... some complained that it's too long. well, this is not a standard movie. he could have left it 9 hours long, for all I care. I would have watched them nevertheless. this is real art, at its best... but other posters have said it all, a long time before me. nothing more to be added, I guess...I would dare say that in a way it's better that T.Malick didn't make too many movies. 'cause maybe they might have been more than we could take.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day is possibly the perfect film – well, if you're into science fiction seamlessly blended with the exact amount of action. And, to be fair, most of us can quite appreciate that sort of genre if it's done right. And it's done right here. This list will be little more than a list of everything that's perfect about this film.In case you don't know (and there must be one of you), T2 is a sequel, concerning some particularly nasty machines who have all but wiped us humans out in the near future and intend to make sure we stay well and truly exterminated by sending a unstoppable (human-looking) killer cyborg back through time to kill the only man capable of stopping them while he's still a child. Luckily, for us fleshbags, the last humans of our future have captured a (slightly less) unstoppable cyborg and have sent him back through time to protect our future leader, John Connor.All four lead actors give pitch-perfect performances here, but perhaps the most forgotten actor is Robert Patrick who plays the bad cyborg, aka the T-1000. He doesn't have that many lines, but his creepiness is portrayed through his movements and sheer coldness. Plus he's overshadowed by his own special effects. T2 set the bar pretty high in terms of special effects for its day. The computer generated moments where the T-1000 morphs into various people (and objects!) is blended with the live actors around it.Our heroine, Sarah Connor, starts off incarcerated in a mental institution for constantly raving about then end of the world when she's not trying to blow computer factories up. But don't let that fool you into thinking that she's merely a damsel in distress. Linda Hamilton has become the ultimate in female action heroes (possibly only coming second to Aliens' 'Ripley'). Not only can she handle any sort of firearm, but she's as determined as the Terminator to protect her son, John. He's played by newcomer Edward furlong and, for someone who has never acted before, he plays his role brilliantly. So many films centred around a child are hard to watch because you actually end up wanting the whinging/screaming brat to be skewered by a cyborg assassin. Not here though. The only thing negative about Edward Furlong was that he displayed so much talent and promise here that he never lived up to it (I'm sure if you Google him you'll find out what I mean).But, everyone is overshadowed by Schwarzenegger himself. Out of all the films he's done, this is Arnie's most memorable. Some say he can't act, but I wouldn't be that harsh. The trick is giving him a part that suits him. Sir Ian McKellen or Anthony Hopkins are great actors, but I doubt they could carry playing the T-800 himself.Finally, Terminator 2 hast heart. It's not just a mindless action flick; it actually has quite nice morals to it and reminds us that hurting other people is wrong and, unless we intend to blow each other up in all out nuclear war, we better start remembering that.If I had to say one negative thing about T2 (and I suppose I ought to, simply for balance) it's that the plot is basically recycled from the first film. Although this sequel is in the minority of sequels where it does surpass the original, it does copy exactly the same timeline of events. Still, once you start watching two emotionless cyborgs throwing each other through walls, you probably won't care! T2 is for everyone. If you like Arnie, you'll love it. If you like action or sci-fi, you'll love it. And, if you're not into any of those, I dare you to watch it anyway. It might not change your mind about the genre, but I think you'll have a good time.

What should a wise man conclude?that this picture is based of true history?or it's just for entertainment? amuse the audience is to show a strong history root nation wild?is to make a powerful civilization barbarians?to make them upset by making such a dark picture movie or film or what? goddamn time it is,believe me if it's worth watching only one time,it's because reviews i have heard from people. Hollywood is called the organization of free thoughts,free believes. i suppose Hollywood is NO free zone of film making,since they make stupid brainless films like Borat,300,Not Without My Daughter &... what do you expect me to write about this movie?huh?do want me to say this whole insulation to my ancestors,my culture,my history is masterpiece?do you want me to be happy of this? History will judge that who was the barbarian,i don"t understand what is Hollywood's damn problem? First of all The Persian's king Korosh has submitted the first law of humankind ever in our own country soul.we have made such a magnificent civilization that its effects still trembles the humankind. so 300 Spartans conquer the whole troops of the empire?with the Persian army that are Monsters?with a king who is 3 meters long & nearly homosexual? Zack Snyder showed a light path of direction by making a decent remake like Dawn of the Dead,now he moves his path straight to hell,making fakes for order,show himself a play card in the hands of fools. Frank Miller is certainly a godless freak that showed his beliefs in Sin City & this crab 300. You call this Art?therefore Maylin Manson is the greatest artist of the present century!!!!!!!! You call this movie?so Beerfest is the best movie of the whole years. Over.

I've loved this movie since the first moment i saw it. It has a great soundtrack, which i bought soon after seeing it for the first time. Cruel Intentions is about these two step siblings who find pleasure in ruining others lives. Sebastian has sex with as many girls as possible, then he further humiliates them. Kathryn on the other hand is selfish and seeks revenge on those who cross her. Both of them are sex crazed, and are extremely attracted to each other, but who could blame them, they sure are hot! Sebastian cocks up his ultimate plan to steal the virginity away from a prude who wrote about waiting for love in seventeen magazine. Kathryn thinks that he doesn't have a chance in hell of doing this and so they make a bet. If she wins she gets his fancy smancy car, if he wins she will f*** his brains out. Kathryn on the other hand wants revenge on her ex, so instead of going after her ex directly, she decides to go after the innocent twit who he left her for. Her goal is to make the poor girl a slut and to ruin her reputation so that no one will ever want her. Things don't quite turn out as either of them had hoped.

A very good somewhat subtle movie where almost everything is in the unsaid, the subtext and the eyes of the characters. The always sublime Kate Winslet did not get an academy award nomination for nothing. She's bold enough to act without makeup, naked and at different ages. The other actors were fine also (including Ralph Fiennes, excuse the bad pun ;-). I wish it had been more touching for me but it's already great that the character played by Kate Winslet was multidimensional and not unlikeable despite her sins. Lest I forget, besides the "love" story element, there is a strong reflexion about morality, guilt and doing what's right. As a former and hopefully future bookseller/librarian, the reading parts of the story were some of the scenes I preferred. It's definitely worth a rental but probably not a purchase as watching it once is probably enough.Rating: 7 out of 10

The movie has some excellent ideas (a particle-based terminator, traveling back to the beginning), they are so poorly executed it's almost insulting to fans of the franchise. Terminator 1, 2, and 3 (which I actually liked because it made sense) seem to have never occurred.Terminator 1 implies that the first time Sarah Connor encountered a terminator (or Kyle Reese, for that matter) was when she was 20-30 years old, however now we're told she met one when she was 9 years old, and now she was essentially raised by one. Terminator 2 tells us that the man most responsible for Judgement Day was Miles Dyson, but he dies, erasing all data related to it. Only now we're told that it was his son who created Skynet, in collusion with Skynet itself. A paradox if ever there was one.Terminator 3 tells us that Skynet is inevitable. It's the natural evolution of machines. Which makes sense. However none of the events of 3 are referenced in Genisys and instead Skynet is apparently just the cloud, in essence retreading the events of 3. As I said, the particle-based terminator is cool, but not much else. This film can't decide if it wants to be a sequel or a reboot and in the end is just frustrating for all the moments you'll find yourself saying "It would have been cool if they did this instead of that."

First of all...I cant wait for the sequel, which is due ot be released next year! I watch the film last night before I went to bed and I must admit: I think the film IS fantastic! I loved it. The film kept to the atmosphere and world of Resident Evil completely well - especially the ending of a film showing the dead city. The sets were great and kept the look of the game. It shows a good story based before the first Resident Evil, which doesnt even show how the Umbrella mansion had a biohazard. The action was non-stop and great throughout the film, I think the Licker 'Hunter' was great and pretty vicously cool! One bad mother f***er in my opinion HeHe! It was VERY good entertainment as it is NOT very easy turning games into movies these days. The only last one was Mortal Kombat, not Annihilation; also directed by Paul Anderson so I think he made a good achievement. My only complaint is that I wished Michelle Rodriguez's character survived! I hope that Paul does just as well with RE2: Nemesis. I rate this 9 outta 10! Don't expect it to be Oscar or this Millennium's great film, its a Blockbuster for the summer and great entertainment; no cheesy Milla Jovovich 'taking on the entire zombie nation on her own' crap. The film was great as its not often you see a great zombie flick. I wonder who will be playing Jill Valentine? And I hope that Milla stays on to play Alice.There is one spoiler though...mainly about the game. In both the game and film, it states: when bitten by a zombie, you are infected. Yet in the game you never turn into a zombie or have time to find an anti-dote for the virus. It would make the game harder but more interesting and true to the zombie transformation. Anyway give the film a go whether or not you have played the games. Its a memorable action film!

First off, you need to believe the hype surrounding this film. Whether it be one of the most gripping and heartwrenching stories ever shown on film, or the wonderful direction of Danny Boyle, everything you've heard about this film is true, as Slumdog Millionaire is not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best I've ever seen.I've never been more sure of a film's greatness this quickly before. Even for my all time favorite films, it took a few viewings to make them my favorite. Not this one. The story behind this incredible journey is inspiring, as are the technical achievements of it. It's a capsule that will transport you into an entirely different culture, and give you an experience that should stick with you for a long time.For those that do not know, the film's plot follows Jamal Malik, who is one question away from winning the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?". However, once he is suspected of cheating, Jamal uses his past as a "slumdog" to explain how he knows the answer to every question. What follows is easily the best story of 2008 on film, and it would be a crime to tell you any more.Though Slumdog Millionaire focuses on three characters in particular, it's hard to review all of the actors...Mostly because a grand total of NINE different actors portray each of the characters in total, three each for each time period. However, that doesn't stop Dev Patel from turning in an Oscar worthy performance as the oldest version of Jamal. His performance, as well as those of the other two boys who play Jamal, carve out one of the most likable characters you'll ever find, because of his perseverance, determination, and unwavering kindness. This is more of a case of an actor riding the coattails of such a well written character.Freida Pinto as the oldest version of Latika did a wonderful job in such a pivotal role despite limited screen time. She was a joy to watch, both from a movie goer's standpoint and a male's standpoint, as she's unbelievably gorgeous. There is no weak spot in the cast, right down to all the other actors who play the kids, as well as the adults in the film. It's one of the best ensembles of the year.Though Slumdog Millionaire is an "inspirational" movie, it is not without its darker themes, as it deals with deception, betrayal, and the brutality of living in the life that Jamal must lead. It's even more amazing how kind and caring Jamal is despite the environment the film takes place in.The awesome genre director Danny Boyle may already have his masterpiece with this film, and I really think he hasn't even hit his peak yet, as this would be tough to top. It takes a lot of ability to bring such a fine script to the screen without messing it up, but Boyle does a beautiful job with his vivid sets, as well as camera work that reminds me of his excellent film, "28 Days Later". Though this film is vastly different, they share the similar theme of survival, something that is a recurring theme in all of Boyle's films. He was already one of my favorite directors, but now he may be getting close to David Fincher for the top spot.As I've already said, the sets, camera work, and editing are all flawless, but I think it's the film's score that really sets the tone, as it flows so well with the setting, characters, and the story itself. This was part of the reason I was in tears at the end, which really doesn't happen to me all that often. Every aspect of the film is at such a high level that it all blends together perfectly to craft what may be the best movie of 2008.Slumdog Millionaire, in short, is a film that cannot be missed by anyone. It's an inspiring and beautiful story that will move anyone. I know it's already one of my favorites, and it may end up staying there for a very, very long time.

Great movie, never like Benicio del Toro before seeing Fear and Loathing, but his performance in this film was exceptional. Johnny Depp does an incredible job as well. However, after watching it a few times, I still have one question about the film and I was wondering if someone could answer it for me. While in the back of their convertible with Toby McGuire, just after Benicio del Toro takes his heart medication, Johnny Depp breaks open a small plastic container filled with some white powder. He says, "Now for the upper," but I don't think hes snorting cocaine because they were keeping that in a salt shaker. Is it some amphetamine, speed, or a different, specific stimulant? Wondering if somebody could provide a definitive answer...

Honestly, when is the last time you saw a decent Disney Animated feature? No no, PIXAR does not count. I'm talking about just a regular ol' straight laced Disney flick. If your like me, I'm sure your answer falls somewhere in the mid 90's. But isn't that a shame? What happened to the totally awesome Disney movies? If your excuse is because of technology, i assure you that your wrong. You can make a great animated movie without resorting to actual hand drawn art. But where is that old feeling we all use to share? Well i can tell you this much....i already knew that Disney had something special here, mainly because the VP of PIXAR jumped ship and decided to fund this project. The first time anyone from PIXAR has ever done so, let alone the freakin VP. So needless to say, Disney finally had enough, and pulled out all the stops for this one.I kid you not when i say this...."Tangled" is easily the best Disney Animated feature i have seen since "Aladdin".....yes, it is that good. They finally let go of trying to find something new and different and settled with what was working for them almost 20 years ago. It's a princess tale that easily falls into the same category with the classics. So wait, does that mean i'm comparing it to the likes of "Snow White" "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty"? You damn right i am! Sure the storyline is cliché' and relative to other Disney classics, but it felt so good to see and feel something that helped recall your childhood. But other than those minor speed bumps, the movie is spot on. The animation is spectacular, and you would be a fool not to see it in 3D. The musical sequences didn't seem forced and were never boring. And i can almost guarantee you that it will snag the best song award at the Oscars. I'm just glad that they didn't work the story around the music, which is what a lot of animated features tend to slip up on. But this one did an amazing job of hybriding them together.Bottom Line, ladies and gentleman, this is the Disney picture you have been waiting for. It will definitely win your heart and please audiences both young and old.

as i said this film is truly awesome, a piece of modern film 'magic' again by chris nolan. i wont go into all the twists and turns and change in eras as other comments have, but will just say the film leaves you feeling more entertained than many blockbuster films that rely on cgi have ever done, and also duped by all the subtle hints that are dropped throughout the film that we don't notice. I have just finished watching the movie for what must be 10-15th time, and still find these bits funny when i see them as some are so obvious,but at the same time woven into the story beautifully, and i am still also finding parts that open up more discussion!! One of the greatest films ever crafted, just as good as batman begins and the dark knight!!

(58%) A good fun fish-out-of-water family comedy. The overly purposeful sweet elements offer some decent laughs, and the Simpsons-esque song routine with the rats and flies cleaning the apartment is very clever, a true highlight. The only issues for me are the sweetness levels going a bit too far at times, and Amy Adams character losing her identity and usual characteristics towards the end of the film for little reason why like an on/off switch had been pressed between scenes. Little girls will love it, while everyone else over the age of 12 will be surprised they aren't hating every second of it. A worthy Disney offering for the good pile.

'The Shawshank Redemption'... hmm where do I start. 'The Shawshank Redemption' is clearly one of the greatest films ever, I find that it really can show what it would be like trapped in a tiny little prison, eventually you would only think of what's outside the prison instead of inside or you might even become attached to the prison or should I say home.What the audience really enjoy's about this movie is that you have been deceived for you believe through out most of the movie that there is noway out for poor Andy Dufresne and that he is trying to be nice to the guards for a chance of believable. After that you discover that the whole film and everything that has happened has all gone towards the escape of Andy Dufresne and the suicide of the dreadful warden. The audience has been gullible enough to believe that Andy was getting used to the prison. 'The Shawshank Redemption' is clearly not just a movie, it is also beautiful art. Every little piece of the movie was delicately put together to create pure yet daunting art.The story is about Andy Dufresne a wealthy intelligent banker who's wife is having an affair with another man. Eventually both the wife and the other man are killed while having sex, with all evidence pointing to Andy, Andy is sentenced to two life times of prison. In prison Andy does a lot of the workers at the prison's (and that include's the warden) banking. From then of the story is all about Andy in the prison and he idea's of hope and love of music.One of the most beautiful and touching moments in the movie is when Andy locks all the doors in the room that has the microphone and plays opera music of two Italian women singing opera in Italian. Morgen Freeman then say's that he had no idea what the two Italian women were singing but doesn't want to know, he just like to imagine that the words were too beautiful to be sung in English.The acting is brilliant and the directing is directed absolutely unbelievably tremendous. I praise both Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins for a very touching movie that I will always remember.In conclusion, 'The Shawshank Redemption is one of the greatest films ever that I have ever seen, if you do not like it I will also understand that you didn't listen closer to the brilliant word that were able to come out of the actors mouth.Hope is a dangerous thing.

I was expecting to laugh a lot and didn't laugh once. This movie was not that funny, I don't get why it got so much press as being the funniest movie of the year. A bunch of F words, don't make a movie funny. Melissa Mccarthy had the best role, but the jokes just didn't make me laugh. Kristen Wiig's Annie character was just mean and ugly to her friends. Plus, the way she treats the guy who likes her like crap, but he still wants her at the end. I don't buy it. Different scenes seemed like SNL sketches, like Annie doped up on the plane or Annie breaking all kinds of traffic laws trying to get her guy's attention.FINAL VERDICT: Over-hyped, I didn't think it's worth seeing.

I can't entirely hate this film because Julie Christie was in it.This film really does deserve the criticism directed at it. Brad Pitt is as wooden as the horse itself. My friend and I were discussing how much difference it would have made if they had swapped him for the David Beckham gladiator in the British Pepsi adverts, they performed roughly the same. The supporting cast are not so bad, well maybe they are but they are not on screen for so long but almost all of the major characters are woefully two-dimensional. This allowed for no atmosphere and a forced sense of drama that you had to prod yourself into staying focused to and thus plodding along to a conclusion. What several people said on here about unbelievable characters is certainly true. It would appear that a few mis-castings took place. Certainly Brad Pitt was, he simply is too 'Hollywood' to carry off an epic role. On the other hand, Eric Bana is competent and Orlando Bloom carries Paris off well enough (even if Helen and Paris have no on screen chemistry) but both contributed to an overall underwhelming feeling. You know this when the first 35 minutes have felt like 2 hours.The battle scenes are impressive as are all of the sets and infrastructure of the film but again this is nothing that hasn't been done in a bigger and better fashion by LOTR already. The film picks up into the final hour when the horse arrives and the final battle inside of Troy kept me focused and redeemed the previous 90 minutes to some extent. Then the ending went and blew it all... I have laughed at how people have stated that the film is 'loosely' based on The Iliad. They want to try and have respect for the magnitude and endurance of the tale before being so dismissive. The ending is appalling.Suprisingly, the eight o'clock showing of this was only about 25% full. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, far from it and I'm not necessarily right but it was a missed opportunity. Size is not everything and from the hype of the past few weeks, empty vessels clearly do make the loudest noise. 3/10.