Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

"Your Name" it's the strongest definition of "style over substance" the animation it's fantastic, the soundtrack it's really enjoyable and the backgrounds arts it's beautiful. But the plot of the movie it's a little bit soft, it's like see your (a)typical romantic movie. It's glad to watch but like a said it's "style over substance".

This is The most Boring Movie I've ever seen in my life .. Yes It's a major jump and maybe The first of its kind in space movies but it's only for its time . The Camera work is very good as well as the music . ( those are the good things )Why I don't like >> The factor of enjoyment and excitement is totally lost in the movie .. The events are too slow in progression and they aren't even related to each other in a descent way .. You seem to be watching more like a documentary than a movie to enjoy ,, I mean Come on where is even the story line ?!! Silence was overwhelming in an absolutely non justifiable way , Really !! 25 minutes to hear a word !! I started to think it was a silent movieThis is Kubrik's way always , I'm not a big fan of him by the way .. So I wasn't expecting much But I found much less than what I expected ,, I mean it's 2:28 hours movie all boring and for nothing !! I need more than imagination and camera work to enjoy a movieThe only way for me to love this movie was to see it at it's time and be a Stanley Kubrik movie lover I guess , other than this no way I could enjoy it

YIPPIE KAY YEAH! John McClane is back for the third time. And i thought Die Hard 2 was explosive! PUUUH Die Hard 3 is ( if possible ) even more explosive. But that doesn't make a good movie. Because even if Bruce Willis is as good as usual, Samuel L Jackson is terrific, and Jeremy Irons is as good as Alan Rickman was Die Hard 3 is the worst of the three. But don't be scared. Die Hard 3 is a terrific action movie. The fall in this movie is in a few things. One of them is the script. The scripts in the last two movies were SO cool. I mean just the idea of trapping an action hero into a building is genius. And the supersonic snowstorm in nr.2 was so spectacular. But even if the third part in the series doesn't get up to the first and secound it still is a great action movie.

Shyamalan created a few excellent movies before this one, and if there was one point in his career that marked a decline from his peak, it would be this one. There are two major things about this movie that make it completely awful, and it makes me think that he was too rushed or lazy when making this film.-- The deadpan acting. I don't know if MNS was trying to go for deer-in-headlight shock, or the heavy burden of the situation, but Mel Gibson and his entire family were completely unemotional about *anything*. After listening to their monotonic drone for thirty minutes, I was completely bored.-- The aliens. These guys are smart enough to accomplish interstellar travel, yet they've been plotting for a long time to take over a planet that's 70% covered with a substance that's toxic to them (I don't know... maybe they were looking for a source for WMDs), and they can't figure out a way to break down a wooden door with a weapon, explosives, or at least an improvised battering ram.... hoooo-kay!

I really liked this movie - lots of great time-slip foreshadowing and well-thought "time machine" twists. It is very difficult to impress me with a time twist anymore - and this one was a lot of fun to watch. Denzel is also a lot of fun as a plainspoken ATF agent amidst what initially appear to be stuffy techs who don't really know how to apply their amazing technology. In the end I think most everyone will really like this ride and find a surprise around every corner - I won't write any spoilers - but if you really like time-travel or techno thrillers, this one's for you.And by the way - pay closer attention to the first time you watch it - then watch it again. There are just tons of little twists that you'll pass over when you first watch the movie - and watching it a second time is a blast because they all come rushing at you. I think the directors intended this considering the theme of the film.

Well when i saw the title, i thought i was going to watch a film with imaginary heroes such as Batman or Spider-man...In a way i was right...But the heroes presented here are very different from what i expected...We have here Mina Harker, Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, Mr. Hyde(and sometimes Dr. Jekyll), Dorian Gray, Tom Sawyer and Allan Quatermain...I found this action movie more agreeable, more original due to this...These guys have to save the Earth from war...A lot of scenes i found amazing, mainly due to special effects, and zones... The dialogs were also very interesting, and increased in my opinion the quality of this movie...This movie deserves an 8. and i actually had fun watching it.

Underworld is a decent Gothic sci-fi action adventure from director Len Wiseman who does a good job in making this movie but there are some flaws that weigh it down. I'll get back to that later. Kate Beckinsale turns in a solid performance as the lead Selene a vampire Death Dealer in the middle of a war between her race and werewolves known as Lycans. She looks great in leather and is convincing as the character especially in the action/fight sequences. Scott Speedman is decent as Michael Corvin who eventually becomes a powerful vampire/werewolf hybrid because something to do with his blood. He gets a few fight sequences near the end that are impressive but for the most of the movie he's either being chased, running, or being held prisoner. Speedman however like Beckinsale is good as his character. Michael Sheen is terrific as Lucian the Lycan leader whose supposed to have been dead and is after Michael for unknown reasons until those motives are revealed later on in the film. Sheen's role may get cut short near the end but he does a great job of portraying someone who you're not sure is either the villain or a man simply driven by revenge who is willing to do whatever is necessary to defend his race. Well done. Bill Nighy is equally impressive as one of the vampire Lord's Viktor but he isn't given a lot of screen time and his showdown between both Michael and Selene near the end felt a bit rushed. He's also easily defeated but Nighy is effective in the role none the less. The rest of the cast including Shane Brolly, Sophia Myles, and a brief appearance by Wentworth Miller are okay in their roles but don't have much to do. The action/fight sequences are well executed but a slow pace in between made the movie fee a little long. The film seemed to be juggling a bit too many characters and it sort of lacked a central villain because there are quite a few of them in this one. If they had focused on just one instead of Nighy, Brolly, Sheen, and many more the movie would've been a little better. It did have a Gothic feel which seemed to fit with the tone of the film and made it a little different than some sci-fi action movies out there. The music seemed to match well with what was happening on the screen as well. So despite some flaws Underworld may not be the greatest movie ever made but it's certainly not the worst either. Overall Underworld has an intricate story, intense action, some suspense, cool special effects, and good performances by the cast who make this sci-fi movie worth watching at least once.

I had completely written off Guy Ritchie, Lock stock and two smoking barrels and Snatch remain enjoyable albeit flawed classics. However he had rubbed me off the wrong way ever since he caused irreparable damage to Sherlock Holmes mythos. And here his downward spiral continues. TMFU follows the usual Ritchie tradition of more style than substance but this time the characters are laughably bad and shallow. We have a psychotic Russian agent who has mental fits played by the fifth lead of The Social Network and the American agent played by the latest Superman who CIA pimps out, seriously his job is to have sex with women and distract them. Both of these admittedly handsome men are there for eye candy and can't act their way out of a paper bag, they are Megan Fox equivalent of acting. I get that the movie is showing it's rebel streak by objectifying men and not women but why not get good looking actors who can act? Well the film also has that covered by hiring a rising star, Alicia Vikander, who is easily the most talented cast member, has a character arc in this movie while everyone else is a very plain, vanilla and one dimensional character. However there are so many logical loopholes and even Ms. Vikander cannot escape from them, why hire a psychotic soldier who has mental fits to do non front-line work? How are even Nazi sympathizers surviving let alone thriving when USSR and USA carried out a witch hunt? Why is there a foolish high school romance angle? These are spies for Pete's sake aren't they bred to kill? The romance is so bad it's not even explored properly, Ek Tha Tiger had better romance between spies and that says something, you either commit to romance or you don't show it at all, this will they, won't they just harms the end quality of the film. Also don't even get me started on the technical flaws, those who have an eye for detail will notice bad research done in the film, that's not how things happened in the 60's, for starters that disc something like that wasn't used to store data back then, the weapons and the cars accuracy is also misstep, not every time but quite often.

The movie Talented Mr Ripley portrayed one period of Tom Ripley's life. The book is a series of events, similar to the one shown, and helps the reader to better understand Tom Ripley's character and maybe even emphasize with him. The film, on the other hand, does a poor job of summing up Tom's problems by showing one instance and then dragging it out for two and a half hours. The audience does not have a clear understanding of Tom's character and becomes bored of the slow-paced film.

Superman Returns! – One of the most highly anticipated films of the last 10 years. After we saw Spiderman in all of his multi-million dollar budget acrobatics, movie-goers knew that when Superman was finally resurrected, it would be something very, very special.From the moment the lights went dim, the packed theatre held its collective breath. Silence, then suddenly, we heard it. John Williams famous score and in addition, the familiar blue swooshing titles. I sat back in my chair and looked forward to what I thought would be a monumental experience and something that I would be talking about in years to come. I was wrong.Like all epic movies, it took a little while to get going. Clark Kent had miraculously started back at the Daily Planet after an absence of 5 years and, er, Superman came leaping tall buildings after an absence of, well, the same! To be honest, the actors were exceptional. They worked with a poor idea quite well. Agreed, Brandon Routh was mesmerising as Superman and Kevin Spacey, in everything he does, was fantastic but I did not care what happened to a chain smoking Lois nor her Beatle haired son. The story (if that's what it could be called) was thin. Lex Luthor back, grows a landmass, Superman throws it into space, nearly dies, and then comes back! I hate to compare it to something like Spiderman, but at the end of that first film, we were all craving a second, worrying what would become of the characters and left the theatre hoping web would come from our wrists.In one respect, I hope this movie does not make a profit on the $200 million + spent. Maybe it will make the Warner Bros. executives sit up and look at all of the other blockbusters that do well, and maintain their income. We all know that that won't be the case. I hate to sound like a real enemy of the movie because I'm not. It was watchable. I had just waited for this movie since Nuclear Man's lights were turned off.This was a massive disappointment. Yes, the FX was amazing and the action was immense but after a project 20 years in the making, they could have done a lot more.

"The Illusionist" is not really bad, nor is it really good, setting it aside form the far superior "The Prestigfe." The performances are good, and the leading actors show us just how much fun they had making the film. Paul Giamatti is especially brilliant as Chief Inspector Ool. His accent is purposefully comical, and he brings the much-needed fun factor to the film. Ed Norton and Jessica Biel are given very little to do dramatically, but they do it just fine.The real problem is that the film is not particularly interesting. The plot is very typical and dull at times, involving an arranged marriage, a wicked prince, a poor lover, doomed love, and a police investigation. The end, which I will not reveal, is also a disappointment. A word to the creators: there does not need to be a logical explanation for everything. Some mysteries are better left unsolved.Still, "The Illusionist" has its kicks. Some scenes have a fittingly magical quality, the costumes are terrific, the set pieces are fitting and enchanting, and the Oscar-nominated cinematography is beautifully golden and crisp. It's a good film, but lacks greatness. Still, I would recommend it for the fun performances and beautiful look of the film.

Hannibal starts out with an eerie opening, pulling you into its atmosphere. It builds up and builds up, however there is a point where things start to go "blah." The tension and suspense seems to die somewhere in the latter half of the film. This doesn't go without saying that Hannibal has more then it's share of shocking jaw-droppers. On the other hand, expectations can be a horrible thing. Many people went to this movie expecting to see something up to par with Silence of the Lambs. Unfortunately, that is a very high expectation. I, on the other hand, went expecting to see how the film compared to the novel, and I was pleasantly surprised, even though the movie didn't touch upon many of the books riskier details. I recommend seeing this movie in the theatre for no other reason then for the "theatre" experience. However, if you're not into gore, well, stay away.

I have been a cop in L.A. for 35 years and I am a film buff. Those are my film critic qualifications.I can't believe that I just saw this. Absolutely hysterical. Where did these guys from Broken Lizard get their background and insight? Somehow, they really captured the humor that we as cops can appreciate. bring on the hate.Obviously over the top on some of the "Shennanigans" but definitely in the ballpark. They captured the essence of some of the ways we find to have harmless fun without letting the public in. For the haters, sorry, we have to find some way to let out the steam and go home to our families.Maybe these boys have done whatever they are going to do as far as movies, but I hope not. they have great talent and I hope they rise on my screen again and make me howl like I did at this one. Good luck and GOD bless Lizards!

I just watched this for the first time, with no previous knowledge of the Watchmen, and was amazed.From the opening scene you know this is not your normal super hero film.Mainly by the violence, there's lots of it and its very graphic....awesome. Don't be put off by the costumes, they do look stupid but soon feel right. I waited for the directors cut to watch this, on blu ray, after being told its good.And i was rewarded with 3hrs of brilliant film making.The writing, directing and effects, all were great, faultless.The story was really good, and left me hungry for a sequel.I never heard of the watchmen before this film, now im searching for the source. The characters and the world depicted, are so well done, and so real.Never have super hero's been written this way.Each character is opened up and laid bare for the viewer, and you get so attached.Even the not so nice Comedian (brilliantly acted by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) pulls the old heart strings.I cannot comment on how it relates to the anime or graphic novel, but you get the feeling watchmen fans are more than happy.This is the kind of hero story I've always wished for, spiderman and the xmen are always way too politically correct for me.Where as watchmen is definitely not for kids.My hats off to Snyder, and to Alan Moore, Dave gibbons and John Higgins.Im off to explore a DC comics store, and see what other brilliant stuff they been hiding.

The comment box told me my summary was too long - so its going in the comments box here.Summary - The year is 2035 and the human race has been reduced by 99% - only 1% of the population remains underground due to a holocaust that made the surface of the earth uninhabitable. James Cole who is in prison in the year 2035 has been volunteered to go back in time and solve the mystery of the Twelve Monkeys so that the scientists in the year 2035 can find a cure for this disease that wiped out the human race so that they can move back to the surface - however the scientists haven't quite mastered their time machine meaning a few things go wrong.Oh and now my summary is missing - what to put as my summary....I really really like this film. The whole concept and idea is amazing. A deadly virus that wipes out the human race is amazing - and it makes you think that this could really happen.The twist at the end (that shall not be mentioned) is brilliant and the whole plans of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys is amazing. Brad Pitt acts brilliantly in this as a mental patient and Bruce Willis is also good. The plot can be quite confusing which makes the film even better - in the fact that you have to work out how it all works. Everything about the 12 monkeys is superb, but some parts do not make full sense and are inaccurate but otherwise is well worth watching.Other films i recommend if you like this one is: -Donnie Darko -The Forgotten -The Ring -The Ring 2

This movie is so offensive, so filled with endless drug and sex fueled debauchery, so full of rot, squalor, and porn that I am almost loath to even spend time writing about it. There is virtually no conversation – simply hundreds of expletives that are connected with inconsequential words in a doomed attempt to fake dialog. And drugs-porn.Most of the shallow characters portrayed, show such a gargantuan lack of class that it leaves you breathless. A moneyed common lot that act on virtually every debased animalistic urge that their festered brains can come up with. And everybody is screaming at some point or another – one of noisiest (non-disaster) movies I have ever been tortured with. And drugs- porn. (Drugs are even snorted out of a woman's assh*le. So classy… ) After this, what can possibly be the next level Mr Scorsese? Scenes of child rape? I really expected a bit more class from you. But hey, we are all in it for the money hey? It is our right. And it is your right to shove this rubbish down the audience's throat.As true as the sun rises in the morning, this excruciatingly-three-hour-long-stretch of bawdy, very noisy and lewd porn-vomit, can never be called art.

"Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" is an American movie from 2017, so really fresh and new still, that runs for 2 hours 15 minutes approximately and was co-written and directed by James Gunn. He was also the man in charge of the first film that plays before this one. The key cast members return as well, like Pratt, Saldana, Bautista plus Diesel and Cooper with their voices. Add to that the likes of Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell, Elizabeth Debicki and "Walking Dead" fans will be happy to see Michael Rooker play a core character in here. This one is all about family. It's about fathers, about sisters, about past loves and children, but also about future family and how friends can count as such as well. It was unclear for a long time who would be the main antagonist in this movie, if there even was one main antagonist. Stallone's character? Rooker's character? The golden gal? The female protagonist's sister? But then it is one you would nut expect initially. Maybe the golden gal would not have been the perfect choice because honestly some kind of theft would not have been enough to justify that, wouldn't it?Anyway, this is of course a Marvel adaptation and this means not only that Stan Lee has a cameo again as always (even two if you count credits), but also that you will rarely get as many shots at comedy as in this film here when it comes to other superhero films. This is good on the one hand as some of the jokes are indeed working, but it is also a negative aspect as with this quantity of funny one-liners many jokes aren't working (like the one about Kurt Russell's character's penis) and make this a film at times that just tries way too hard to be funny. Another negative side effect is that the comedy takes away majorly from the dramatic parts. Just take the scene where the sister raves on in an insane manner about how she wants to kill Saldana's character and her father and then there is that guy who is the companion to Rooker's character (no idea what his purpose was anyway) and he must give this outburst of rage a comedic note by talking about simple stuff (jewellery or so). It was pretty embarrassing. And there are more moments like that, like Bautista's constant rambling about how Mantis is not really that attractive which was only funny the first one or two times. But luckily the characters in here are so unique (a talking raccoon nuff said, Cooper is actually pretty bearable when you don't see his smug face and grin) that it is still a really entertaining watch. I liked Drax, Rocket, Ego and Yondu the most I believe. On a negative note, this film proves once again that Chris Pratt, who had his breakthrough on Parks and Rec, is just not lead actor material as he was overshadowed by pretty much everybody else and that things don't look much better for Saldana, even if her make-up hides it pretty cleverly. Their interaction together about forbidden romance between protagonists were downright embarrassing and the story with Saldana's character and her sister was basically saved by the sister really and honestly the film still could have done without that story entirely. It also did not feel that authentic that she wants to kill her sister the most gruesome way and then they start bonding all of a sudden. You could say okay they have not seen each other and that changed everything for a long time, but they have when the bad girl is cuffed inside the spaceship. So the story sure had some flaws and while I enjoyed Russell's performance a lot, I still am not sure if the plot about his planet was good enough to be in the center of it all.The one area where the film delivers without a doubt is the technical side. Visually and acoustically this film is as good as it gets and with that I am of course referring to sets, but also to make-up, cinematography and costumes of course. I would not be surprised if the movie manages to get in at the Oscars for one of these just like the first one did. I must say there is one exception though. The use of music was a bit exaggerated in terms of frequency and the only scene where the song played was truly working was the very first scene that is all about Baby Groot and that also was perhaps the best scene of the film already. However, the liberation scene with Rooker's character and this red laser was pretty cool as well. Speaking about this character in general, one could almost think that he and Stallone's character could get their own film, even if it is not too likely to happen I guess. What is likely, basically safe already, is that there will be a third GotG movie, probably in 2020. This one here is the second most successful film of 2017 when it comes to box office and that's a major (not unexpected though) success, even if there is perhaps a slight deterioration in quality compared to the first film. I recommend them both. Worth checking out.

I`ve never understood the popularity of Adam Sandler or the fact that he`s presently one of the highest paid stars in Hollywood at the moment . I`ve not seen too many Sandler movies so perhaps I should hold back my opinion but I think HAPPY GILMORE is an archetypal Sandler movie . Sandler plays Gilmore a self deluded ice hockey player who`s a bit goofy and a bit of a schmuck who tries his hand at golf and ... well you`ll have to see the movie to find out what happens I expected to hate this movie since I`ve little interest in either Sandler or golf , but it`s not nearly as bad as I expected . It`s hardly a classic comedy like CADDYSHACK was but it is amusing in parts and one scene involving Gilmore`s rival and " Frankenstien`s foot " made me chuckle .

Hilariously funny.Sacha Baron Cohen takes his blend of irreverent slapstick and candid camera skits, perfected through Da Ali G Show, to the big screen. Borat was a regular character on Da Ali G Show and now he gets his own movie.Half candid, half staged, totally funny. It just works on so many levels. The central plot is okay, but is merely just s device for Borat;s antics.Sending up people's ignorance, playing them for a fool or simply using them as background - so many victims. Sometimes Cohen's sheer nerve and chutzpah has to be seen to be believed...Once you strip away the jokes, you get a feeling for the superficiality of modern culture. Sometimes you need a naive (faux) foreigner to show you how wrong society has gone...

This movie was hilarious! It's kind of on the same level as the first movie. Both movies made me laugh out loud. This film features your different kind of humor. The humor in these films isn't your usual fast wit kind. It's the slapstick kind of comedy where things actually happen. People were hit, people were made fun of, people had stuff done to them, etc. It also includes crude humor. Different and kind of rude, but still hilarious.The plot wasn't exactly A+, but the humor made up for it. I mean, really. It did. Jim Carrey saved this movie. Jim Carrey was really perfect for this role. Crazy-ass Ace Ventura. Who else can play such a part?

Senseless, gratuitous violence mars this film. It's also too long. I watched the first 5 hours and it was slow, but I kept watching in hopes that the last 2 hours would redeem it. They didn't. How can so much talent get in the way of the story? Maybe there were too many egos.

When I was 13, my life wasn't terribly far away from Tracy's. I befriended the shallowest girl I've ever known (whose mother was also a model, and parents going through a divorce) and got caught up in the whole 'trying to be cool' thing while sacrificing true friends. This movie really isn't terribly unrealistic, and I thought it captured a thirteen-year-old's life and petty desires beautifully, as it reminded me so much of that time in my life.I think there are several messages the movie is trying to send. A scene of Tracy riding a bus through town shows her gazing at various billboard advertisements in a dizzying way, which I felt made the argument for media's affects on children transparent and validated. I think it made a statement about how parental problems such as alcoholism, divorce and addict boyfriends distract from your ability to realize what's going on in your child's life, internally and externally. I think it also made a statement about how to be a better parent. Again, I feel this movie is worth a view.

I am not a real film buff, and neither is my wife. I had heard that this film was supposed to be good, and rented it. Despite the excellent cast and good production values, I couldn't believe how labored the script was, and how much overacting was taking place (much of it by Nicholson).When we finished watching the movie, I remarked to my wife that I must have gotten the film confused with some other. I went to IMDb to see what rating it had gotten -- I figured maybe a 6.7 or something.To my disbelief, it lands in the top 100, and won the best picture Oscar! I went back to tell my wife that it had won the best picture, and she thought I was joking. Then her reaction was that someone had hacked my computer.As far as the comments here, I would have had to think that there was a large astroturf component. But with the film winning best picture, I guess I am just seeing one of those occasional mass delusions that happens in the world.But what I *really* can't believe is that it won best script. Un. Be. Lievable. This script was so bad, and so unconvincing, that after I told my wife that it had won best picture and director, I remarked that for sure it couldn't have won best scriptwriting. But it did.I simply don't understand what people see in this film. The plot is sophomoric. The involvement of Costello in routine pickups and deliveries, and the immediate trust and access to the boss given Costigan, is so implausible that I find it difficult to believe anyone can take this film seriously. Is it supposed to be camp or something?

I have to admit that I expected more after having read some reviews. There are a few good jokes and I liked a few of the animals but I wasn't impressed with the film. I have to add though that I saw the German version and so with the original voices it might have been a totally different experience. For my taste there was too much talking and much of it was fairly repetitive. Much of it is also quite (superficially) focused on the US and the rest of the world may be getting fed up with this after a while. I didn't find the zebra's cheer-leading act in the background too funny. I wished more thoughts would have gone into the story.

Sam, a grown up man with intelligence of a seven year old happens to have a daughter. Her mother leaves them in the very beginning. Sam, as a very sensitive, good-hearted guy tries his best to be a great parent, despite of his mental handicap. Obviously, his limited intellect makes it very difficult for him to face the obstacles his situation serves. Well-acted struggling of Sam to understand the world around him and to deal with his destiny his new role and life's everyday problems really made me *feel* the story. Well written characters and great, believable performance of Sean Penn as Sam and Dakota Feening as his daughter Lucy quickly got my strong sympathies. Though this film didn't offer that much of surprising plot twists, deep subtle messages or extraordinary attractive scenes, I'd say this film was very good - for its emotional content - the mighty and powerful love between the parent and his child.

This contains spoilers. Read at your own peril. But read and avoid wasting your time watching.....The movie could have shown a story about a deranged, barren woman stalking her ex-husband, his new wife and their baby daughter and, in the meantime, meddling about in the ongoing investigation of the disappearance of one of his ex-husband's neighbours.That's what the movie *actually does* up to the point where we are informed that the poor woman had been bullied by her ex, during her drunken episodes, into believing she had done all sort of things.Yes. The bad guy in this predominantly female movie is....a man.They could have kept the drunken woman as the culprit and have the other women sensibly figure out what happened and apprehend her.It wouldn't make a *great* movie, but it would be a good one.As it is, the bad guy is the psychopath ex-husband. Which cannot hold with the story's innumerable plot holes and inconsistencies and makes this movie a simple victimisation/empowering story.

The movie was brilliant I had to see it for history class and I learned a lot. I wanted to see the movie Don Chedle is brilliant and is great at this particular role. His wife was great as well. This is a Must see movie. It will take you back to when Rwanda was in trouble and no one came to help except one guy who sheltered 1000 Tutsis and is a hero of Rwanda. It was sad though because it was a war and a lot of people died. Very educational and a good lesson to learn about peace and war. The movie was so great but very sad I cried and I am writing an essay on the movie. I also want to see it again. It was so good and there is a lesson to be learned about helping and keeping peace between people. I felt very sorry for the people of Rwanda who lost family members.

I was surprised with the negative reviews. I thought the movie was decent and unique. Where Hollywood seems to be recycling old movies and concepts, this movie is a breathe of fresh air. Would definately recommend.

I'm not a big fan of history, but this movie caught my eye. As I watched it, I thought, "Wow, this is the best movie I've ever seen." It would take you places, like a really good book that you can't put down. It's sort of like an Indiana Jones movie; it's full of action, suspense, and excitement, and it will definitely keep you on the edge of your seat, eager to see what will happen next. Also, Nicolas Cage did an absolutely fantastic job being Ben Gates. He did so well, that I'm looking forward to seeing some other movies that he starred in. This movie was definitely a thrilling adventure for me, and I ended up making it my favorite movie ever. But I would not recommend it for young children (8 years or under) to watch, because some action violence occurs in a few scenes. However, for anyone else, I'm sure it will be the treasure hunt of a lifetime.

Well, this one made me sign up, and I'm write my first review ever. Okay... And I'm doing all of that not because it's like the best movie of the year or anything, but because how strongly I felt to express how good it is, compared to other movies that I thought were some of the best of their genre; and I'm talking here about Ocean's 11 & 13. For quite some time I thought they were very good, and Ocean's 12 as somewhat artistic. But boy I think differently now; Ocean's 11 & 13 are your typical popcorn flicks, with some nice visuals and catchy scenes here and there. That's it, Nothing more. But on the other hand, Logan Lucky is subtle at sometimes (in a good way) and exciting at others, with some very good performances by the main cast. Which makes it one of the best of in its genre.

This is one of the funniest comedy's i've ever seen. Carrey and Daniels are terrific and makes you laugh everytime they open their mouth's.One other thing is that it's funny all through the entire film.Very funny movie!

teenager Ethan Wate sees his life tremble by his encounter of Lena Duchannesthe. instantly Ethan feels interested in Lena, maybe even in love with her, but here world just seems to be wrecked.Together, they uncover dark secrets about their respective families, their history and their town she has supernatural powers that are beyond her control. Worst still, a curse looms for Lena at the approach of her 16th birthday a time when the forces of either light or dark will claim her.With "Beautiful Creatures," we continue the seemingly inevitable march toward a cinematic America with a population 50 percent human, 50 percent "other," including but not limited to superheroes, mutants, vampires, zombies, werewolves, mummies, fairies, angels, witches, ghosts, demons and the undefined undead.

For the life of me I cannot fathom why this got only half favorable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm no war movie fan but this is really interesting. The laying-in-wait, sniper vs. sniper thing is fascinating. The imagery looks better than average. Yeah, there are lesser moments. As when falling glass in an abandoned factory lands in a position no piece of glass has ever landed; allowing a German sniper three or four perfect reflections of his clandestine prey. I'd happily watch this a few more times to pick up more details, or to explore the secondary story threads. Law and Fiennes are both good. Even Rachel Weitz can't ruin it.

The third film doesn't have as much suspense as alien, nor is it as spectacular as aliens, but it still a good film, definitely much better than your average scifi splatter action movie. David Fincher already proves he has talent.

Contrary to the common "Snow White" that we know, Snow White & the Huntsman showed that she's not a damsel in distress. The movie's storyline is a matured approach to the fairy tale with a 'Lord of the Rings' kind of feel throughout the film. As expected, I see no difference to Kristen Stewart's acting of the title role to that of Bella Swan from Twilight. Most of the 'believable' acting came from the other two lead actors, Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman and Chalize Theron as Ravenna, the Evil Queen. While watching, I was seriously waiting for some Disney 'Snow White' elements like the seven dwarfs, red apple of death and the famous 'kiss of true love' from Prince Charming. In this film, all the elements were there, although some new characters and twist thrown in the story line (like for example the love triangle) was not given enough emphasis and depth.I didn't particularly liked the 'tragic' ending where I was left wondering if a victorious revenge but a true love lost will make Snow White happy ever after. (Geesh, SO MUSHY!). I'm not really a big fan of open-ended love story.My rating: 7/10 Stars.

Li Mu Bai wishes to no longer own an ancient and beautiful sword, it brings back to many bad memories, so he gives it to his friend Sir Te. That night someone brakes into their compound and steals the sword. What ensures is a breathtaking fight scene. The martial arts in this movie are wonderful, but the 'flying' is purely incredible.Li Mu Bai and his friend Yu Shu Lien then try to get the sword back. The film then takes on some different sub-plots, including a very bizarre but nice love story, so I won't reveil anymore of the story.Cue more breathtaking fight scenes, a very long but amazing flashback, scores aplenty to settle and some beautifully filmed scenes.Michelle Yeoh is as nice as ever. She is a wonderful actress and I greatly enjoy seeing her in all her movies. Ziyi Zhang (Jen Yu) is also a very beautiful and talented actress. The cinematography is wonderful. The flying in the fight scenes just amazed me and the bamboo tree scenes near the end are to beautiful for words. Only complaint, one of the special effects near the end of the movie looked rather cheesy.'Wo Hu Cang Long' is a medium paced martial arts film, combined with a touching romantic story, and a nice, if at times a little slow (not a bad thing in this case), look at Chinese culture. Ultimately the film asks questions about life.I greatly enjoyed this film and would recommend it for both lovers of martial arts and romantic films.9/10

This was great! I was laughing so hard.I especially enjoyed the kitchen fight scene. I thought it was very well done, funny, good action, and I loved that it was in a kitchen. V. subversive.I loved how, in the blink of an eye, Melissa McCarthy went from "mildly cringing innocent bystander who happened to save the life of an evil rich lady" to "bodyguard hired by said lady's late father and who doesn't give a s*** anymore."Also the writing made so many nods to things that happen in movies and in real life to women. McCarthy's boss (Allison Janney, hooray!) wasn't always nice to her, but she made a point of giving her credit for her work. The field spy McCarthy worked with for twelve years was actually not as nice as he seemed, faking her out with a crummy present in a fuzzy, hinged jewelry- store box, but even worse, convincing her to remain his handler when she could have been a field agent years ago. So basically sweet-talking her into letting her career stall for his benefit.Anyway, nicely done; I hope to watch it again in a few years with my son when he's old enough.

I saw this movie after it was nominated for a Academy award.The premise of the story is cool...somehow mankind can no longer reproduce. In other words women can no longer become pregnant. As a sub-plot there is this anti-immigrant story where country of England is shipping out all non-British people, maybe this is the reason this movie has resonated with so many people.Somehow Clive Owen's character gets caught up in helping a pregnant girl escape to some save haven. Obviously her baby is special, but because she is a immigrant, the government is after her.The movie does a poor job of clearing up the who's after her for what reasons. The ending is fairly meaningless. I guess it is some king of warning for "developed nations" where citizens are having fewer children while immigrants (legal and non-legal) are multiplying 3 times faster.Wait for it to come out on Sci Fi for free or rent it for a dollar.

This film has got to be seen/// To see what censors can do to the screen/// Even the director/// Seems like a defector/// How can kiss after kiss be so clean?

The most gripping, terrifying aspect of this movie is that it made millions at the box office. I am ashamed I even rented it to see if it had any value at all. I found myself booing the screen and throwing things. One of the worst of all time.

Eric Draven (Brandon Lee) returns back from the dead one year later, after the brutal murder of him & his fiancé on Devil's Night, the day before Halloween. Eric walks from his grve to his apartment, with pain and memories of that terrible day where his fiancé was raped and murdered by a group of thugs, the day before their wedding. Soon the crow shows and leads the way to destroy the people who did this awful deed to Eric. Eric Draven being back from the dead is invincible now and one by one kills all responsible to only find a greater revelation. The Crow is a awesome movie, i watched it for the first time in 2010, even though it was released in the late 90s, i put the movie in my all time favourites, brandons acting was excellent, magnificent, there's no words to descrube. Unfortunately he was killed on set, by a shooting accident, this movie was probably landmark movie for the Lee family. Rest In Peace Brandon Lee, you are missed by thousands worldwide.

This movie put director Luc Besson into the big league.The basic story is about a drugged up vicious street punk serving a life sentence for killing a cop.She is given a second chance at freedom of sorts, by a top secret French assassination agency.The movie shows her transformation into something better then she was and the affect it has on the two men in her life that mean something to her.This movie is amazingly well acted. Anne Parillaud, Marc Duret, Patrick Fontana are outstanding.This is a pretty violent movie, but not just for the sake of violence,it is a necessary counter-point to Nikkita's blossoming appreciation of life.The violence is realistic and well done.The action scene's are fast pasted and tense.Everything about this film is top notch, I recommend it.

This movie is an instant classic. I was not ecstatic about seeing this movie but after seeing it I can tell you the hype for once was right. This movie had some great dialogue. Eddie Murphy as the donkey has not been this funny since his Raw and Delirious days. The animation ( which is by far the best ever) helps bring the jokes to life. The great animation will keep the kids intrigued while the adults are laughing at the somewhat sophisticated humor. Some of the jokes are obvious but who cares this is the funniest movie since There's Something about Mary and may go down as the funniest of all time. I give it a perfect 10

Loosely based on true events, this drama stars Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof, a long tall Texan, who lived for drinking, smoking heavy, snorting cocaine and bull riding. But the bulls weren't the only thing Ron rode bareback...he also had a craving for frequent and casual sex, at a price. Woodroof was openly racist and homophobic, who would be considered courageous after being diagnosed as HIV+. Angry and in deep denial after being told he had to get his affairs in order with probably thirty days to live, if lucky; Ron began gathering all the information he could about what would become called AIDS. It is 1985, and doctors have yet to have all the answers to the questions. Determined not to die of a "faggot's" disease; Woodroof would be enlightened that the new disease was not limited to homosexuals.The drug AZT was known through clinical trials to help fight AIDS; but other experimental drugs were yet to be government-approved. Ron trying to put what was left of his thirty days to good use, would begin smuggling drugs from Mexico to prolong lives of others suffering from the AIDS epidemic. Skirting as many laws fighting him as he could, Woodroof would organize a "buyers club"...not selling the drugs, but charging for his services.McConaughey is more than brilliant and his dedication is obvious in getting his body in physical condition to fit the gaunt role. Also outstanding is Jared Leto, who plays Rayon, a trans-gendered-minded friend and foe. Others of note: Jennifer Garner and Griffin Dunne. Rounding out the cast: Steve Zahn, Denis O'Hare, Kevin Rankin, Dallas Roberts and Donna Duplantier.

This is a beautiful movie. Every scene is amazing. The first thing that struck me after watching this film was how much i enjoyed it - it was the only thing on TV that night so I decided to watch it as I am a brad pitt fan. I assumed it would be slow and boring for me, but although the plot is pretty slow and not a lot happens at times, it manages to keep you interested due to the characters (the acting is very good by the whole cast) and their lives. There are some sad, tragic events in the movie, I was almost crying at a few scenes I must admit. The end is also good - I wasn't sure how it could end, but the way it does is original and kind of fitting. See this movie, if only for the scenery and acting - you cant help but marvel at it. I loved it and I'm not usually a fan of sprawling period dramas.

Bridge of Spies is directed Steven Spielberg and stars Tom Hanks as James Donovan, an American lawyer that, in Cold War era 1957, is chosen to defend a captured Soviet spy named Rudolf Adel (Mark Rylance) in a court of law. He later is selected to negotiate a swap of sorts to trade Mr. Adel to the Soviets in exchange for an imprisoned American pilot, Francis Powers (Austin Stowell). This film is based off of a true story, and is truly one of the best films of 2015. I'm glad it's nominated for best picture.The best thing this movie offers is the directing. Very few films are directed perfectly, and this is absolutely one of them. The camera angles Spielberg utilizes are fantastic, and his ability to capture a whole conversation in just one shot is magnificent. The cinematography is also great. The cinematographer (Janusz Kamiński) did amazing at capturing the Cold War era, and the flips in between Germany and the United States are very distinguishable and impressive.On the contrary, the movie is long, and has about 2% rewatchability. Much like Spielberg's 1993 film, Schindler's List, the movie is a one or two time watch, and may be a two hour-thirty minute snooze-fest for action lovers. Anybody who comes to this movie expecting James Bond espionage will surely have a good nap. However, a film lover and admirer of the art of cinema will be on the edge of his seat.The acting is also great. Tom Hanks gives an amazing performance, as always, yet not very memorable, unlike Forrest Gump or Captain Miller (Saving Private Ryan). His character won't be remembered in twenty years or so, no matter the status that the film ascertains. However, Mark Rylance gives the performance of his career. Besides Stallone, Rylance is most qualified to acquire the Oscar. The only performance I really had a problem with was that of Amy Ryan in the role of Mary Donovan (James' wife). She didn't exactly do bad, but her ability to portray her disagreement with her husband in dealing with his defense of a Soviet spy.The main problem I had with this movie is everything having to do with the American spy, throughout the first 45 minutes or so of the film. It takes away from the intensity going on with Hanks' and Rylance's characters. Every time something suspenseful was happening, the film would switch over to Power's side of the story, which wasn't too interesting. His scenes were directed well, and acted well, so the blame goes to the jumpy script, although the Coen brothers (yeah, they wrote a serious movie) ultimately did well once the second act rolled around, and lifted the film up pretty high.The last thing I'll mention is the score. This is the first Spielberg movie in many years that is not composed by John Williams, and it shows. However, that's not a bad thing. This film has a really good score, and keeps the suspense up, in a style Williams doesn't often use. Not to criticize Williams; he's the best film composer working today, but the score is captured beautifully by Thomas Newman, this film adding to his collection of many other great films he's scored, such as The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and American Beauty (1999).Overall, Bridge of Spies is a great movie with a few nitpicky problems here and there. The acting is good, the script is good, and the directing is flawless. I'm going to give Bridge of Spies an A-, or a 9 out of 10.

This movie is just awful. Take away 1 scene (De Niro shooting the guards) and the average rating for this movie would probably drop 2 to 3 points. And that scene had nothing to do with the actual Vietnam war but was just sort of 'COOL'. I enjoy war flicks and Apocalypse Now is one of my all-time favorite movies.. But this movie just didn't make sense.The editing is terrible.. The wedding scene just goes on and on. I suspect it was the best footage they had shot and they just couldn't bring themselves to cut any of it. Then the war starts.. We see a brief helicopter scene and next thing we know our heroes are in a POW-camp? Excuse me?! What just happened? After that point the movie just gets progressively worse.The plot is just outrageous. You don't have to be a statistician to understand that Walken having a successful career in Russian roulette is absurd.. His successful streak ending just the moment his buddy comes looking for him makes it even more silly. I guess many people see good symbolism for war in the Russian roulette theme and thats part of why this movie scores so high... but come on, you cant reduce the Vietnam war to something that never happened in it..This movie insults my intelligence! Its a silly Hollywood action flick posing as a meaningful war drama.. and quite possibly the most overrated movie of all times!

The highpoint of the movie, from what I can tell, is the nude scene of Keaton. Beyond that, is there really anything there? I sure couldn't find it. There was a little bit of witty banter between Nicholson and Keaton, a script as devoid of plot as any movie I can recall, and an absolutely throw-away ending. It wasn't exactly painful to watch, but neither was it anything else. A vapid, pointless, aimless, empty bit of film. It did manage to take up some of the time whilst flying across the Pacific (never an entirely pleasant experience). But I kept waiting for something to happen, something in the plot or characters to develop some interest in. It never happened. Underwhelming...

I thought the movie had so much potential, but was utterly disappointing. I really don't understand this movie gets such a high rating on IMDb!!! The actors weren't to blame, they did a decent job in general, but all ethical dilemma's were taken out. WHY???????????? NOthing happened in the end, nothing was solved, it was totally pointless.Some examples: Catness played the hunger game , the rule was only one survivor, then suddenly there could be 2 survivors, she didn't have to kill anybody, she didn't take any though decisions and in the end nothing changed in the districts, WTF?????? .She falls in love with this stupid guy from her district (or didn't she?)and all is well in the end??? the movies would have been a lot more interesting if he stabbed her in the back with a knife (or vice versa) and the districts would overthrow the regime., or that she had to at least kill the cute girl and hang herself out of misery. So many opportunities for a good movie and they just missed them all!

A good cast having fun with a solid idea. Renée Zellweger (Bridget) is a genuine comic talent and gets on well with her British cast. She's also game, not least for putting on weight, tough for an LA resident but lending the film veracity. Of all Hugh Grant's trope cards, 'nasty charmer' could well be his trump; Colin Firth manages to be a part of the comedy whilst being handed the serious, straight guy role. Very good.Bridget Jones is a funny creation (both ha ha and peculiar), the rewards for which Helen Fielding deserves. I can see the guiding hand of Richard Curtis here and I must qualify myself ahead of time - I think Curtis does have a gift for ordering and pacing a script. The jokes are also funny but he does have a tendency to bludgeon with shock-pottymouth bursts. I don't know how much is Fielding as opposed to him but this film suffers from it. I'm sorry to bring this up again but it always sticks out for me.All in all, a solid, if plastic film where the supporting British cast seem to have the whole thing in their blood. For all Zellweger's Bridget Jones is an amusing creation I can't help but feel that she's also a rather sad one. 4/10

The director tried to become a successor of Kubrick. But he failed totally.This movie is absolutely senseless, boring, without any message. The rape sequence is without any necessity long and detailed.So what? A production of a mad brain to get some attention by scandal. Thats all.

Many of the objections cited here against various films, which invariably begin with the claim that 'this is 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back', baffle me. Those involved in filmmaking do so for any number of reasons ranging from the purely commercial to artistic and political, and however good or bad one thinks a film is, it is almost always very obvious why a particular film was made. And usually it is to attract a fee-paying public to cough up the readies to, naturally, cover all production costs and then turn a handsome profit. Source Code, billed as a sci-fi thriller, is one such film. But a great many user reviews on this website lambast it for 'poor science' and using various computer terms misleadingly. Well, what on earth were they expecting from a film? What did they make of the Star Wars series, of The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day, Jurassic Park and any number of other films which deal, ever so superficially, science? So please don't be put off by some of the criticisms here. Source Code is a rollicking, very entertaining, intriguing and exciting film. No more, no less. It makes no grand statement, doesn't take itself too seriously, keeps you watching, includes loads of quite daft science, has a touching, though quite slight, romantic angle, and for my money is worth the time of anyone who would like to relax watching a well-made, entertaining film. Don't listen to the harping critics, sit down and watch this. You won't be a 'better person' afterwards, you won't have altered your political views, you won't be in tears, and you most definitely won't have learnt a little more science, but you will have enjoyed a great piece of sci-fi thriller hokum.

Same old story, retold countless times, filmed even more. And yet Mark Webb makes it all the more original. Creative and funny, sad yet truthful 500 Days Of Summer hits all the sweet and sour aspects of romance and the fall out on its head without being over indulgent. Chemistry between all the actors worked out perfectly, and the architectural views of downtown LA showed how carefully the entire movie was thought out. The movies brings the best out of both Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel with the latter performing increasingly well with every new movie she picks up. Kudos to Webb and the entire cast and crew members for one great romance! 8/10.

Why are you so angry to BH6? If you want cute "Baymax" and futuristic tech, watch it, if your "old-styley", and then this movie is not for you.IMDb reviews are so many with 1-star ratings. "So haters gonna hate, hate, hate." It's an touching movie. See the spoilers on YouTube? This is for the new generation people. San Fransokyo was a brilliant mash-up! Hiro was an intelligent, geek teenager. I am a fan of BH6. So don't be so angry to Disney. ALL MOVIE PUBLISHERS HAS CONS AND PROS. It's a new movie. Wait for the others, and it will be the top 1 2014 movie. It's a "challenging" movie because it has SO many easter eggs. If you have comments, just send an e-mail to [email protected]: "I will always be in you."

"Enemy Of The State", is a good piece of entertainment from a duo of filmmakers that have brought many such pieces to the screen. Having said that, if we had 1% of the gee-whiz gadgets that this film had, and they worked with 1% of the efficiency that the film portrays, Osama Bin Laden would have been apprehended before midnight on September 11th. The balance of Al Qaeda would have been rounded up within a day or two. Orwell's vision in, "1984", is tame when compared to the absolute instantaneous control this film portrays the US Government as having over any citizen they pick. A good story needs good actors and this film has at least a trio of fine performers. Will Smith is a man whose career is still just in the early stages of what should prove to be decades of success, and he already has one Oscar Nomination to his credit, Jon Voight already has an Oscar on his shelf, and one of my favorite actors without condition, Gene Hackman, adds yet another great performance to his resume of films. There are real government agencies portrayed in the film, but they are portrayed in a science fiction like manner. No film crew is going to get inside of The NSA, and no amount of name dropping of publicly known satellite names, like "Keyhole", make this film's portrayal of data gathering any more believable. The NSA wishes they could do what this film gives them credit for. However if you really want to know what they can and cannot do, there are many very good books that share the little information that is in the public domain. Much of it is dated, but like the first Stealth F117-A fighter, when we (the public) were finally shown the plane, it was already an antique, an incredible and still very useful aircraft, but one that had been around for many, many years, and was already several generations old. Watch this film for the pace and entertainment of a great chase from beginning to end. Just do not take the technology too seriously, and don't allow it to raise any level of paranoia you may have. One fact about The NSA that has been documented is that they can review less than half of what they collect. This is not due to their competence level, rather the shear volume their systems flag for review.

I'm not sure just how far into "The Wolf of Wall Street" that the realization finally hit me that Martin Scorsese had made this movie before. It's "Goodfellas" with different criminals, and it's not as good. This film is longer, and raunchier -- I wished my soul could take a shower fairly early on -- and while it's certainly lavishly made, with great acting, this restatement lacks the charm that the mob movie had. The artifices that were so novel in 1990 (the narration, playing to the camera, the long steadicam shots) now look derivative, and you cannot root for these characters like you might have before, even though both casts are replete with lowlife, scum criminals. At least Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy were likable lowlife, scum criminals. Jordan Belfort and his partners are simply reprehensible.I expected the cursing and didn't mind it, even though this film probably tops both seasons of "Deadwood" in uses of the f-word, because many New Yorkers do talk that way. I must admit that I was a bit taken aback by the gratuity of the sex scenes, which made "Caligula" look tame by comparison, and I can't imagine that people could possibly take the amount of drugs depicted in this film and still live, much less function. Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But this film is not for the faint of heart.On the positive side, I very much enjoyed the performance of Rob Reiner as Belfort's father, loved Kyle Chandler as the FBI agent, and thought it was a great touch to have Bo Dietl play himself (plus that he appears in both "Wolf" and "Goodfellas"). There are many faces you've seen before, and I'll probably spend a good deal of time surfing the IMDb to see all the connections. And I hope that we see more of Margot Robbie -- meaning seeing her in more films, since we will have already seen all of her in this one -- as this is her meatiest role since "Pan Am," and she proves here that she has some real acting chops.In short, I would say that you should save your money on this film, and buy the DVD to "Goodfellas," that you many enjoy it in its brilliance over and over, instead of this rehash.

Everest is a very enjoyable Action/Thriller but I'm not going to sit here and write as if I have in-depth knowledge about Rob Hall or the true events of what really happened in 1996. I will write about what I thought of a movie that was inspired by those true events, though.Now, like I said a moment ago, Everest is a very enjoyable film, but just be aware that it's a wee bit slow for about the first 45 minutes or so as it sets a foundation for story & character development. Notice how I say it's a "wee bit slow" though and not boring. I personally never found any part of this film boring, even during it's slowest moments. It definitely picks up as it goes on however, and it ends up being an exciting & suspenseful true story adaptation. The tension is built very nicely and it creates an excellent sense of anticipation of what's to come as the climb continues, and because of the well made character development you feel a sense of attachment to the individual characters making you feel more saddened for each one's fate.The whole look of the film was superb, especially the later moments of the movie to make it seem as if everyone was scaling Everest. It probably wasn't hard to set the initial tone & feel of the movie with the cast & crew actually being in Nepal, but all the scenes that show everyone higher up the mountain were filmed really well and it did make you feel as if you going through their journey with them.Of course the cast definitely helped sell this too with their individual performances, which were all good. I thought he was wrongly cast as John Connor for Terminator Genisys, but Jason Clarke was excellent as Rob Hall, as was John Hawkes, Jake Gyllenhall, and Josh Brolin for their respective roles as Doug Hansen, Scott Fischer, and Beck Weathers respectively.Everest is wonderfully directed with some amazing cinematography of Everest and surrounding areas of Nepal and it is most definitely well worth watching.

Started as interesting. But later, oh my... the cheapest way of telling the story. One thing you will notice when they rob banks that the STREETS ARE EMPTY!!! SO funny, empty streets all the way throughout the movie. Daytime, night time, always empty streets. Also, the main character looks retarded throughout the whole movie and it is annoying. Kevin Spacey, why, oh WHY DID you accept to act in this low production garbage movie...?

After the Batman franchise was almost killed forever in Joel Schumachers 'Batman & Robin' in 1997, people feared it was the end. The film contained everything nobody wanted in a Batman film. It had Robin, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Batgirl. Oh and the Batman suit had nipples. It was like a sesame street version of the film in which everybody was just thrown in whether or not you liked them. Luckily in 2005 we got Batman Begins, a new era for the masked hero. It returned under completely new management. Given the task of re-inventing the series was Christopher Nolan, writer/director of Memento and The Prestige. This man cast Christian Bale. Together they made one of the years best films and now they return for a sequel. darker and more exhilarating and thrilling than all that had come before. These men made people love batman again. Despite using relatively unknown villains they made a great hero film with a great 'becoming Batman story', a twist and the right amount of action. Then came The Dark Knight. In it Batman is preparing to give up his job as hero of Gotham City and be with Rachel. He believes new district attorney Harvey Dent, Gotham's White Knight can finally clean up the streets and put the crime bosses behind bars. Then The Joker arrives. He comes in with a bang by robbing the crime bosses money from a bank and then tries to get more off them for killing Batman. He then kills one of the crime bosses as his real reign of terror begins. He starts targeting and killing everyone and everything, including police stations, hospitals, Batman impersonators, crime bosses, civilians, criminals, lawyers and even Rachel. It seems no one is safe from his rampage until Batman comes forward. Batman tries to stop him but finds it difficult due to his vow to never kill. As The Joker gains more followers and continues to eliminate more and more important government figures he tries to show Gotham that inside they are just like him and in the end he does create another villain, driven by anger and a desperate need for revenge. The battle between good and evil continues and it is like when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object. The Joker just wants to see the world crumble and fall around him, bringing terror and violence to the city whereas Batman just wants to clean up he city so that he can move on with his life. The Dark Knight has already become known as one of the greatest films ever made (Voted 4h best on IMDb).If you ask anyone on the street what the best film of the year was and chances are they would very quickly say that it was this. It has everything that makes a good film, stunning effects, mesmerising performances, brilliant direction, a thrilling story, plot twists, action, drama, tension, chilling scenes, a fight between good and evil and a meaning to it all. I had feared that with the astronomical amount of publicity that I would be extremely disappointed but it wasn't so. Heath Ledger was by far the best thing about the film. He gave a truly phenomenal display, which has already got him a Golden Globe nomination and which will hopefully get him an Oscar. He made the role of The Joker his own and I feel sorry for anyone who will play the character again at any time in the future. He was terrifying yet chillingly humorous and it is without a doubt the best performance I have ever seen anyone give. Christian Bale returns as our favorite hero. He continues to show why he was the perfect choice for the role as he perfectly portrays the changes in his character from the arrogant and cocky Bruce Wayne to the brave and determined Batman. His voice while in the suit can get a bit annoying but it doesn't really take away form his display. There was doubt surrounding the recasting of Rachel as Stranger Then Fiction star Maggie Gyllenhaal took over from Katie Holmes who apparently 'did a great job in Batman Begins'. She was actually very bad in Batman Begins, I thought and after 5 minutes I was convinced that Maggie was a much better choice for love interest Rachel. Aaron Eckhart also gives a brilliant performance, one which is quite similar to the one he has in Thank You For Smoking. He plays Harvey Dent and both Ackhart and his character are fantastic additions to the film. Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, who has become a much more important member of Wayne Enterprises. He acts as Batman's assistant I guess and he continues to show that he really cannot give a bad performance. Gary Oldman is back as James Gordon, soon to be commissioner Gordon and he also gives a great performance, as does Michael Caine, who also features again as loyal butler and adviser Alfred. Every member of the cast give great performances and each one adds something to the film and makes that little bit more impressive. I was a bit disappointed that The Scarecrow only features in this for about 5 minutes as I hoped he would bring us into the world of Arkham Asylum but I forgot all about this with the arrival of The Joker and Two/Face. This is a masterpiece, quite simply and it's exactly what this year needed. Christopher Nolan has done an amazing job behind the camera and he makes this installment of Batman stand out from the rest by miles. it's darker, more thrilling and full of plot twists,a great ending, surprises, tragedy and of course non stop heart-pounding action. I look forward to the future films from this franchise as with this team they are sure to be just as brilliant and memorable as this was.

First of all I read the book and it's not one that lends itself readily to visual media, while the movie is beautiful to look at the book was more an inner intellectual struggle, with a lot of the dialogue going on in his head. So having said that, I loved the movie which was a surprise because I thought it would have made for a slow moving movie. And for some I'm sure it will seem that way. If you aren't enthralled by shuttle launches and realistic space travel etc, you're probably gonna want to put a gun in your mouth about half way thru.but the thought of travel and survival on another planet captivates me, apparently. So I may be over rating this movie. So I think you either love OR hate this one. I think the actors all did a good job and even the tugging on the heart strings wasn't too too overdone. And they did a good job of giving you the feel of the book.

To anticipate the experience of viewing this film, imagine spending 2 hours listening to the The Chipmunks chattering away without stop. Except that the giggling creatures in the film are not the Chipmunks. They are violent and vicious, constantly clobbering each other.To pick one example out of many : two characters appear on screen, one holding a hammer, the other a spike to be planted. The character with the hammer suddenly smacks the other character on the head with it. No reason. Just to get a 'laugh'.To me, a most disconcerting thing was to see the Mom sitting next to me in the cinema with her two toddlers burst out laughing.The violence in this film is not at all like what we used to see in Roadrunner cartoons. No attempt were made then to portray the Roadrunner or the Coyote as three-dimensional human beings. There was no possibility of associating the characters on screen with real people. The attempts at humor" in this film are more like that of the Three Stooges. If you loved the Stooges, Despicable Me will leave you in stitches.

Well after seeing the movie i am really disappointed.. I know that movie can be exaggerated in they're entirety, but this really takes the price like no other movie does.They were like 10 times stronger then superman.. Many production mistake etc etc...If we compare this movie to Troy.. Which can be compared a little bit, well Troy is more a average movie. But its for sure better on all possible ways.Well this was my biggest disappointed this far..I do NOT recommend anyone to see this movie it will be waist of your time..except if you like cool effects and so on..

Ever since this film came out, I have been curious to see it because of the premise: the idea of a woman in love with a man intending to wreck his upcoming wedding and win him for herself was promising. What could be made of it? Furthermore, the premise is neutral: either a very good film could be made or a very bad one. Well, this isn't at all very good, and if it isn't very bad, it came damn well close. Only big bucks Hollywood production values and a couple of big name actors prevented that. This film was on TV in the UK tonight and I made a point of watching it. Almost from the start I had decided what kind of film I thought it would be, but before sitting down to write these comments, I decided to skim through a few of the other reviews. And they only confirmed my worst fears. One said if you like this sort of film, watch it. Another recommended it highly to all Julia Roberts' fans. Fair enough. But if you enjoy good, intelligent, witty, truly romantic, funny and poignant films, I recommend you give this one a miss. I don't mean to get heavy, but, oddly, anyone IN the US who is puzzled as to why many, many people OUSIDE the US should regard Yankee narcissism as increasingly insufferable should spend a little time simply analysing My Best Friend's Wedding. It seems to encapsulate what is, to us non-US people, so offensive about that, in many other ways, admirable country. Apart from the Dead Hand Of Hollywood, which feels obliged to drown in sugar and schmaltz anything and everything that moves (the potentially very witty scene of Rupert Everett singing Say A Little Prayer is killed stone dead by the film insisting in that very American way of going way over the top — quite probably the American producer's insistence overcoming the Australian director's good taste), we have a very, very curious morality. For example, this film is shot through with the idea that 'to confess it to be forgiven'. I've confessed, so I am absolved, and to hell with any consequences. This film has the good grace to make Julia Roberts character finally admit that she behaved like a semi-psychopath, but even then that confession is wrapped in pseudo-romantic humour which implies: 'Aw, shucks, well that's OK then.' Then there is that peculiarly American - and thoroughly dishonest - trait of insisting 'we're all very basic and unpretentious at heart (the comparison by Roberts between creme brulee - Kim - and jello - her) while all the time exhibiting that odd and revealing American dog-in-the-manger worship and admiration for Big Money, Wealth, Prosperity. One problem of this film is that it begins to take one particular tack, then abandons it. Kim's choice of Julianne as her maid of honour in order to keep a beady eye on a love rival was quite a promising theme. But by pay day All Is Forgiven. Oh, yeah? Aslk a few women, while they are in their cups, if it really works that way. Then there was the Greek chorus of (two sisters? Cousins?), bitchy Southern belles both. They were very promising material, but for no particular reason are redeemed in the penultimate scene when they sing The Way You Look Tonight. The final judgment of this film is: looks good - Hollywood has a buck or ten to hire extras etc. - and tastes good if you like jello and sugar, but it is far too dishonest to be in any way worthwhile.

this is the most shocking, most disturbing, and most unbelievable movie I've ever seen. It was so unpredictable that when you get the whole point of it you are glued to the seat until it ends. I did not know what it was about,people told me it was shocking. I was thrilled like never before,like a fast roller-coaster. when it was over I was like whoa,I was speechless, I was blown away by the unbelievable performance of 14-year-old Ellen Paige,and the sickening torture sequences. Every guy's nightmare,and I was truly uncomfortable.I pitied the guy, he was sick and thoughtless, but still it was a very very extreme way to show him how bad he is. From the minute I realized what's happening,I could not move, I was shocked and terrified. You don't know if he's guilty, or if Hailey(Paige)is just completely insane. But you discover at the end she dosen't care if he's a pedophile, she just wants him die and suffer for his sick thoughts. She seemed like a nice,cool,mature,charming girl but she had this sadistic plot to destroy this man's life from the very beginning. he dosen't seem like a pedophile, he's a photographer,but he makes the worst mistake by taking her back to his place,and fixing her up a drink. she turns the tables and stops the sadistic plan she thinks he has up his sleeve. the end was just nail biting,jaw dropping. if you want to be shocked and terrified, rent this. a whole new spin on Internet dangers of chat rooms. Riverting,disturbing,harrowing. NOT A DATE MOVIE. WARNING PUKING WILL OCCUR

What a grand disappointment.I usually love the Coen's work, comedy or drama, but this movie fell way short of the mark. The acting was phenomenal and the first two acts were funny as hell, but the third...*** Spoiler Alert ***In the third act the laugh out loud comedy got dark - very dark. I'm all for dark comedies, but don't spring on the darkness in the final act. A character gets shot in the head while another gets shot and hacked by a hatchet attack. Way over-the-top for what once was a blast of a comedy. Besides the poorly written dark elements, which seemed to be shoe-horned into place, the flow of the narrative had trouble. It would have been better to open with Linda's plastic surgery consultation and close with its discussion in the epilogue. This means the movie would have come full circle and regardless of everything that happened, ended where it began. It's a shame the editor didn't cut in with views on the subject.The movie could have been another star in the cap for the Coen's, but it turned out to be a bummer and a disappointment because it seemed rushed and the film itself had an identity crisis.

This is without a doubt, my favorite movie of all time. Back to the future stars': Micheal.J.Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson and Crispin lover just to name a few. I did that without checking ether which proves that I've seen this movie WAY to many times in a week (6 times to be exact). Lets get to the plot.It's about a kid who gets sent to the past, accidentally stop his parents falling in love and seducing his mum? Creepy.Real talk time!!!! (A time when I talk about whats good/bad about a movie) The Cajigger: (main plot item) it is the DeLorian the coolest time vehicle ever made. 88/100The feel: this move irradiates 80s' it has the cool guitarist, it has the girls with weird hair, it has the teen which just wants to rock 'n' roll... PARTY ON.The Doc: he is the equivalent of mixing Dr Frankenstein, Mel Brooks and Dr Evil. You get the idea. A funny, crazy scientist. It's as epic as it sounds.This movie is easily the best time travel movie and even the best movie ever made.don't do yourself a disservice and not watch it. GO WATCH IT.

This is not a fantasy, but there is a surreal aspect to it that is aided by the foreign language. I sure don't speak French, but never felt lost. The film delightfully plays with the audience, and is some kind of upbeat cross between Moulin Rouge, Ghost World, and Run Lola Run.

When Hitchikers originally came out (as a BBC radio series, long before the book was written) it was very successful for two reasons. First, the radio effects were great - really new and inventive for the time. Second, it was smothered in droll, dry, ironic British wit.I remember hanging on the cleverness. It had a similar feel to a TV series of the same era called Fawlty Tomers. Some of the phrases stick in my mind almost 30 years later: the bypass plans on public display were in a locked cabinet in a cellar under a sign Beware of Leopard. "It's times like this I wish I had listened to what my mother told me - What did she say? - I don't know, I didn't listen." Trillian took off to space because, as a woman with an advanced degree in physics, it was either try that or go back to the dole line.I understand how a radio play has to be drastically changed to provide a (somewhat) coherent movie plot. I understand how the six hours of radio had to be edited down to fit a movie.But there was an awful lot of very bright, hilarious, thoughtful wit that could have fit in. Unfortunately, it had to make way for the usual formula writing. It was a little disappointing for something so very original to be turned into something quite ordinary.

"Paterson" is largely filmed in the old industrial town of Paterson, New Jersey, and pays homage to Paterson and all the people who came from there, in particular, William Carlos Williams. Adam Driver plays a bus driver named Paterson, who drives a bus through a downtown route in Paterson. He writes poetry, and lives in Paterson (his house might have been filmed in Yonkers, alas) with his wife who stays at home and paints everything in the house black and white. They have a dog, Marvin, who is another star of this movie. Yeah, it's charming and delightful, yet it's by the icy-cold Jim Jarmusch, go figure. It's about poetry and poets and people who come from Paterson, like Lou Costello and Allen Ginsburg and Hurricane Carter and Frederick Reines, the Nobel Prize- winning physicist who co-discovered the neutrino. Several scenes are filmed at the beautiful Passaic Falls (unfortunately, it must have been a dry season, the falls are a bit trickly). It's a deadpan comic delight-- and there is nothing in the whole movie about crime or decay or corruption or evil. It's wholly sweet, and especially sweet for North Jerseyites, who often fail to see the poetry around them.

I normally do like big disaster movies even though you know it's going to be much exaggerated. It doesn't really matter to me because I just watch those kind of movies as entertainment. But this one is too ridiculous for words. The amount of times I was thinking "Pleaseeee"... Really nothing can harm our super hero Dwayne Johnson. It's really annoying. When you think that a couple million of people just died and there is absolute chaos everywhere he still finds his daughter in the middle of a devastated San Francisco. His rubber boat can apparently drive through debris without being damaged at all. No bodies to be found during the whole movie while the biggest earthquake ever just occurred. Compared to other big blockbuster disaster movies this one is really the worst I ever saw.

Don't waste your money. Rather than conveying the excess of the time, this film is brimming with trite costume and set design, and more than anything - has some really bad acting. Obvious and boring. The actors are not compelling. Ms. Mulligan is so bad, she sounds and looks as it she has been dubbed by another actor. Plus, she is simply not attractive enough in appearance or delivery to convince anyone that she is a love interest. The Myrtle character truly looks like a cartoon. The sets look as if they have been computer generated, which I think they were. The first long shot to Gatsby's house looks amateurish, as if a film student has built a model. And then filmed it. The film contains one cliché after another. Loud does not equal fascinating. Very, very disappointing. This film makes the Redford version look like a masterpiece.

This is a technically superb piece of film making which is unfortunately let down by a lack of character development and some dodgy acting. The weakest part of the movie is casting Kriten Stewart who is just not sympathetic or beautiful enough to convince and her bland acting makes it hard to empathize with her. Charlize Theron is a fine actress but she seems a bit uncomfortable as the Queen. Nicole Kidman played a similar type of role in "The Golden Compass" with silky assurance and I would have expected something similar from Theron. This leads me to assume that the director is not skilled at getting good performances out of his actors. And the fact that the evil Queen is far more beautiful than Snow White does unhinge any credibility the story may have with the audience. The film becomes more interesting when Chris Hemsworth finally comes on screen after 34 minutes. At times it seems that he is impersonating Sean Connery but he is a good fit as the Huntsman and has a commanding physical screen presence. His character unfortunately does not get enough screen time or development. The one thing the film does nail is what could have been the cheesiest part of the story and that is the portrayal of the 7 dwarfs. Using character actors and giving them the best lines helps to keep the film entertaining, apart from Bob Hoskins who has to deliver some truly awful dialogue. The amazing special effects used to film the dwarfs are a major plus. All in all, what I expected, but could have been 7 or 8 stars with a better actress in the lead role and developing the Huntsmans part more.

Hook I used to watch this movie all the time when I was little. I hadn't seen it for probably 12 years when I saw it on TV and decided to watch it. I really can't think of another time in my life where I have been flooded with memories. For all these years, I've had all these images floating around my head and I had no idea where they came from, and then I watched this movie and I found that they were all from it. I must have watched it a hundred times when I was a tiny tot, haha.All right, to the review. This is a Steven Spielberg film following a grown-up Peter Pan, who works as a lawyer and completely forgot about his life in Neverland. He is pushed back into his childhood when Captain Hook, hungry for a rematch, kidnaps his kids and holds them ransom. I think it's a really cute, original idea. I never wondered anything beyond the Peter Pan fairytale, so it was cool to see someone else's vision of what happened.It's a movie aimed to be another Spielberg blockbuster; therefore, it's full of jokes designed to satisfy a large audience and overflowing with enough cheesiness to make your tears taste like Gouda. It tries to appeal to a large audience, and that's it's biggest downfall, I think. It seems like the only funny jokes are the ones where it didn't seem like they were trying to get you to laugh. I liked that though, I love hidden gold.The actors were pretty good. I didn't hate Williams' character. I didn't like him so much either, but I didn't feel the same way I did about him in RV. Most of the child actors were awful, but I don't mean for that to sound as bad as it does. Usually I can't stand child actors, usually I think they all suck, but some of the Lost Boys were adorable and acted like real kids, instead of cute little robots. I laughed a lot during this movie, and most of the time it was because of those little boys. They're funny.I'm certainly not saying this is the best movie ever, or Spielberg's gem, but it has a special quality to it that I'm not sure I can describe. It has all the qualities of a movie I'd hate, but somehow I love it. Why is that? Just nostalgia? I don't know. Maybe it's the message, maybe it captures my hatred of becoming an adult and losing all powers of imagination. I love the moral of the film, it's cheesy, yes, but delicious. I hate to sound like a sentimental grandma, but I feel like this film contains a lot of that "movie magic" that makes cinema so special. It's a cute movie, it's a feel-good thing. It's full of creativity and happiness, family and love. Nice things. I'm definitely gonna buy it some day and watch it with my kids over and over. I love it. I recommend it. :)

i don't remember the original very well but this one was good. the only bad thing is i live down the street from that house actually i live in trevor but its like a 2 min drive. and it sucked to have to drive all the way around that place to to go get food. and when they were driving down the street in what was suppose to be new york that was antioch i think you can see j j blinkers a comedy prop store on the left olmost at the end of that shot. when they are driving to the house for the first time i beilive they are driving away from silver lake towards the east. i feel the commentary will be very interesting when it comes out on DVD.

Kudos to writer/director David O. Russell (The Fighter / Three Kings) for doing an exceptional job getting extraordinary performances from his stellar cast. This is a film which has done the impervious task of securing Academy Award Nominations in every acting category, a feat that has been accomplished since Warren Beatty's "Reds" in 1981, and the first film to receive four acting nominations since 2008's "Doubt." The writing is brilliant, and the acting is radiant as Bradley Cooper (Patrick) and Jennifer Lawrence (Tiffany) light up the screen in this very original, highly entertaining romantic comedy. I really believe that Academy will reward David O. Russell for his Adapted screenplay of the Matthew Quick novel "Silver Linings".Jennifer Lawrence is definitely deserving of her Academy Nomination and Golden Globe win for Best Actress as Tiffany Maxwell in this film. A role I would have never imagined that this 'Hunger Games' star could ever pull off, Lawrence proves that she is a force to be reckoned on the Hollywood scene and a certified "A" list actress for this performance. The Tiffany Maxwell character is a certified nut case. Coping with the recent death of her police officer husband, Tiffany resorts to sex to cope with her stress.Equally unparalleled is Bradley Cooper's performance as Patrick. Again, a role I would have never expected Cooper to be able to accomplish. The Patrick character is an undiagnosed bi-polar individual with moods swings and delusions brought on by severe stress, or in other words, 'he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs"!!! As the film opens, Patrick has been incarcerated the past 8 months in a psychiatric facility after he inadvertently walked in on his wife having an affair. To round out this delicious cast of miscreants is Robert de Niro as Patrick's dad, Pat Sr. The Patrick Sr character is an obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) suffering die-hard Philadelphia Eagles fan, who is tremendously superstitious and has recently lost his job and pension. In order to make ends meet, Patrick Sr runs a book-making operation from his home. He has also been permanently banned from all Philadelphia Eagles home games due to an altercation in which he started a fight within the confines of the stadium. I really believe that the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor is a two horse race between De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook) and Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), both performances are worthy of their nominations.I would like to acknowledge some very noteworthy cameo appearances in this film from Chris Tucker (who really needs to have David O. Russell direct him in a full fledge film). Tucker was funny, entertaining, and a joy to watch on screen. Also Julia Stiles role as Veronica (Tiffany's sister) was another fantastic performance, and Stiles never has looked more beautiful on screen.My only drawback to this whole film would have to be the film's climax. After 110 minutes of some really great dialog, plot twists, some pure lunacy, and some really great acting. I feel that David O. Russell, just kind of phoned the film's climax in. The last 12 minutes of this film culminate at a Philadelphia Dance event in which Tiffany has wanted to enter all her life. We not talking 'barnyard' prom dance of "Footloose", or 'resort talent show' dance of "Dirty Dancing", but full fledge "Dancing with the Stars" Ballroom competitive professional Dancing. A sequence painful to watch; both Cooper and Lawrence were uncomfortable at best on the dance floor and I literally cringed during their pinnacle 'lift' move which had Jennifer crouch area awkwardly situated in/on/at Cooper's face (it really reminded me of the "Police Squad" movies sequences where Leslie Neilson would have OJ Simpson's crouch in his face for comedic relief)… to make matters even worst, the recovery move was equally excruciating to endure. However, I digress…Again, I truly enjoyed this film. I highly recommend seeing this very original film with fantastic performances from a stellar cast. Well deserving of all the pre-season award nomination accolades/attention that it is receiving.

Here is another Eddie Murphy comedy that if you saw the trailers for it, you have seen all the best parts. This is also a movie that is more marketed to children than adults and that is another problem with it. It bogs down with a lot of sentimental rubbish as well...I don't know if it is just me, but I want to laugh when I go see a comedy, not have a message jammed down my throat. Though this one is probably good for families, the parents should be warned that they are in for a good joke here or there, but the rest of the time it is a bit stupid. Norm MacDonald is rather good as the voice of the dog and Chris Rock is recognizable as well, as for the rest of the voices who is to say who they are, no other actors with really distinct voices seem to be used. Some of the jokes may be a bit inappropriate for children, but they most likely will go over the child's head. For the most part this movie is a slow mover that just isn't all that funny for most adults. Seems like Eddie though is making a career off of this type of movie so more power to him.

1990's "Quigley Down Under" is basically a western parody of "Die Hard" (1988) , so if you liked "Die Hard", then you are this film's target audience. I would have liked it a lot better if I was sure that it was an intentional parody but I suspect that the director blundered around with little focus during production and the parody elements just came out accidentally; probably unrecognized by anyone but the editor. On the other hand, the fact that Alan Rickman simply reprises his Hans Gruber character lends support to the possibility that much of the parody stuff was intentional. If you view the film you will have plenty of time and mental energy to explore the intentional vs unintentional parody question because the running time is long and it drags in many spots. Also there is no effort to incorporate suspense into any of the story so you will rarely get so caught up in things that you lose the detached perspective of a viewer. Some mental energy is required to suspend disbelief at the extremely contrived story elements and implausible action, but this will only be necessary for reasonably intelligent viewers (fortunately they are the ones with enough functioning brain cells to expend the mental energy). "Quigley Down Under" stars Tom Selleck, as the title character-basically playing a gritty version of his Thomas Magnum character. Quigley is an American sharpshooter who goes to 19th century Australia in answer to an advertisement placed by a rancher named Marston ( Rickman). Things get very "Joe Kidd" (1972) at this point as Quigley has moral objections to his new job duties, exterminating (at long range) the local Aborigines who regularly rustle Marston's cattle. Of course there is no plausible reason for Marston needing a long-range rifleman for this activity (mounted men could easily catch a running Ab), but the less logical thinking you do while viewing this film the more you will like it. Quigley throws in with Crazy Cora, (Laura San Giacomo) a ditzy American with a tragic past. She really is crazy but gets better when they fall in love. I liked both their performances. Quigley is invincible against a sea of bad guys (the movie is simplistic good vs evil). The only times he gets overpowered is when someone sneaks up on him from behind and knocks him out. The director apparently thought the shock to the audience from the completely unexpected conking was worth losing any suspense factor from the stalking-it wasn't. Any suspense anywhere would have been a welcome ingredient. Also bleeding out any suspense is a tendency to have the bad guys pontificate endlessly when they have the drop on the hero. The problem is that the outcome of such a scene is a foregone conclusion and the speechmaking just makes you tired. Finally there is an overworked tendency for the bad guys to try one final trick after they appear to surrender. Which rapidly gets old, lame, and stupid because it is entirely predictable. Again, they don't set these up to build suspense; instead the action comes out of nowhere; substituting a shock factor for a suspense factor. But it doesn't shock. The good acting and production design is wasted. If only the producers had expended a few more resources in pre-production to make the film smarter and more original. And then done some major trimming in post-production to pick up the pacing. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This film is the definitive book on the creation of masculinity. This film defined it for me when I first saw it in high school. Now, when I try to help others understand performance, I go back to this for men, and "Mona Lisa Smile" for modern feminism. I regret not taking the chance to pick up a parking meter head that a woman was selling at a garage sale. What better inside secret that I am a "Luke" fan. Luke becomes Christlike. This was an interesting prism to look at the film through when teaching at a religious school. It also speaks to the culture that crated it, in the 1960s. Another film that everyone should take time to watch.

Okay, so the plot has big holes, the acting is a little cardboard and it doesn't hold a candle to the classic pirate films, but it's still fairly good fun, well intentioned and has some pretty decent action sequences (but then would we expect anything else from Harlin?).Davis does her stock action characterisation, Modine acts well out of type and the supporting crew of gnarly pirates are a bit of a laugh too.

I has Asbergers as it is kind of bipolar disorder in a way. I have to take medication and seek counseling. But unlike the Bradley Cooper character of Pat, he does not take medication for the way it makes him feel.As he just lost his teaching job, his home, and his wife who got a restraining order against him for beating his wife's lover in the shower. And spent eight months in a Baltimore mental facility to help him. You really feel for this guy and the kind of mental problems he faces.His worried and loving mother, Delores(played by the great character actress, Jacki Weaver an Australian putting on a Philly accent), takes him back home, against the wishes of his Eagles loving estranged father, Pat Sr(Robert De Niro), as their love of the Eagles is all father and son have in common, but nothing else.His life takes a drastic turn as he gets to working out by jogging with a garbage bag on and how people say he is unrecognizable losing the weight throughout the movie. He then meets Tiffany(played by Jennifer Lawerence, no wonder they are calling her the next Meryl Streep!).Tiffany is the female version of Pat and a widow who's husband was killed and has her own mental issues. And lives with her parents. But has a dancing basement that she helped to build.Despite the love-hate relationship between them, both have a bond of some quirky sorts with one another. Trying to find common ground in the process.But Pat wanting to be back with his soon to be ex, keeps getting in the way. As Tiffany wants to be a dancer. But if he writes a letter and gives to Tiffany, to give to Nikki as he has that restraining order against him. But Tiffany in return, wants him to dance with her in an upcoming dance competition.He reluctantly agrees as they go through a grueling and rigid dance training, helped by Chris Tucker, who is a friend of Pat's, and another patient from the mental facility.A bittersweet but really sweet and dry humor kind of movie. Lawrence and Cooper really make a great couple. And how they have a sort of understanding and love-hate relationship with one another. Makes the movie watchable.Weaver, Cooper, and Tucker are great in the supporting roles. Lending support to the two. No wonder it is a great film. It is not for everybody if you can understand why Pat Jr and Tiffany go through on a physical, mental, and emotional level!

Everyone really wants to love this but, after the first episode, it has gone downhill fast. I liked the idea of revealing man's violent nature by illustrating how violence seems acceptable when perpetrated against androids. But in no time at all the plot became the usual "if it can go wrong it will go wrong" fodder, just like umpteen Jurassic Park movies. Then there's the as yet unclear odyssey of Ed Harris who seems to be a perpetual holiday maker, on the search for something other- worldly in the depths of Westworld. Furthermore the people who run the "park" are full of hate and vitriol, as though the makers think that this is what all hi-tech companies are like. And despite their genius for creating this life-like world they seem unable to control it, especially when it suits the plot. For instance, they seem to be able to "turn off"the androids by using an pad of some kind, and yet this doesn't seem, to always tell them where the androids are; and sometimes the androids turn themselves back on again. Is it that the makers think this is how technology will evolve or do they just think that the viewing public are so dumbed down they don't care. I stopped watching half way through episode three after placing my bet that the people who run the park will turn out to be androids as well.

If I may, let me note what a year 1994 was for film. This film. Shawshank. Gump. The Lion King. If someone came up to me and started ranting about how this was the best cinematic year ever, I'd actually listen to them for awhile before asking them why they are getting in my face. Of those films, this and Shawshank stand out, because they were not pre-established blockbusters. Gump and Lion King were expected to be pretty big, and just turned out bigger than anyone could possibly imagine. But these films were smaller, more personal projects. They are also quite different from each other in almost every other way; a notable one being that while Shawshank barely made back its budget at the box office, this film took off. Over the last couple weeks, with Steve Jobs and the like, we have examples of platforming failing. But it can succeed: this film is a prime example of that.This is important not just if you're incurably a nut about these sort of things, like am I. It means that this is the first exposure a lot of people had with a Tarantino film. I bet a lot of people became fans for life at some random matinée screenings some cloudy Tuesdays. This is one of those films that I would have loved to be there at one of its early screenings. A lot of minds were opened those days.I hope I'm not overselling this film, but it is one of those films that is so great that it is nearly impossible to oversell, which is a positive for me, as I love my gushing descriptions, as you might be able to tell if you read my review of Mad Max: Fury Road.One thing that must be noted about this film is that it goes out of order, and not a semi-organized out of order like Memento. This does not make the film hard to follow- it is easier to follow than Memento, at any rate- but it does make you think on your feet. Sometimes, I think that this whole movie is a then-young Mr. Tarantino taking a hunk of dynamite to the usual three-act structure. And it is glorious. No film better encapsulates the rush of exciting new filmmakers that we had in the 90s than this one.The title describes this film so well. It's not based on the style of blockbuster films. This isn't Jaws or Indiana Jones. This is darker, dirtier, less-universally subject matter. This is the equivalent of those books you keep for a trip to the doctor's office or the DMV just so you can be pulled out of the doldrums of life. It's not trying to be one of those Great American Novels written by Fitzgerald or Steinbeck that is typically only read by 'normal people' when they are in an English class or when they feel particularly scholarly.Of course, most of those novels were not particularly good, even at being what they are. This film is. It's clever, action-packed, well-written, and so much more. It represents a stark change from the happy-go-lucky (sometimes), subtle (often), and averse from breaking new ground (usually) attitudes of eighties movies and holds up a banner for nineties film. In the nineties, the same techniques that were developed for dark and gritty and serious movies like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now were being played apart the fabric of the mainstream. Yes, kids movies got even cheesier and less legit. But they no longer defined the market like they did in the prior decade.Artistic exploration became the norm. And few did that more than Mr. Tarantino, particularly in this film. Yes, if pulp fiction is what people expected, pulp fiction is what they got. But they did not get it in the way that they expected. To once more go back to MM:FR, I'm willing to be there were people who went into that film expecting to see just another action film in the style of the dime-a-dozen Die Hard and James Bond knock-offs that pop up so often every year. Their experience with that movie is probably on the level as anyone who came into this film expecting to see a mere piece of pulp fiction. This film is not a part of that 'genre', if you can call it that, but both an homage to it and its leading light. It transcends its grounds, its place in time, and perhaps even the medium of film itself. It is pure artistry.I cannot exaggerate how much of a breath of fresh air this was. Pretty much every problem with film in the eighties was given an antidote. It's also a good cure for everything from with major filmmaking today, though I argue that a more artsy version of the Hunger Games series would be a better one. But that's just me.As you might expect from a film that took off like this, it launched several careers and revived others, including that of John Travolta, who for once uses his overacting to his advantage. The soundtrack, of course, is phenomenal and iconic. Enough so that when I wrote the words Pulp Fiction down on the page, the first thing that popped into my mind was the title theme (Misirlou as covered by Dick Dale and the Daletones, in case you were wondering).Above all, when I watched this film, I felt a love for film and artistry, as well as a desire to build upon the works of the past while making a unique mark. It enraptures you in itself. Honestly, I'm kinda surprised that it took off like it did back then. But I'm not surprised that it's remembered today. It holds a unique place in society and is one of the definitive 90s films. Enjoy.

I usually don't care much for movies as old as this one, since, to me, most of the earlier talkies look just as choppy and mechanical as the silent movies which preceded them. But, this film was very well made and stands the test of time well. Peter Lorre seems to overact a bit, but he may have been directed to do so, or was only practicing the style most actors employed back in those transitional days.

Barrymore and Sandler showed with Wedding Singer that they were a great couple with a good chemistry, this was another test to see if Wedding Singer was a loner of if these two just were great together on screen, and indeed, they are fantastic together in this movie too!Henry Roth is a local womanizer who are afraid of relationships, until he comes along what appears to be the woman of his life, Lucy, there is only one problem here, the girl of his dreams is suffering from short term memory loss, so every day when she wakes up she has forgotten about him, this means he has to make her fall in love with him day after day, however this does make complications.This is a really good movie, honestly i was glad to see that they still can make good romantic comedies in Hollywood, even though it is the a definition of a romantic comedy, it's not really as stupid as one could expect, it does have its periods where it tries to be stupid, but it's not in front and it doesn't get noticed much, actually the "dumb" persons of the movie that could be there to annoy you, they actually work fairly good and even gave me a few laughs, though i hate dumb humour, but this movie was so loveable i guess i got into the mood.The direction isn't much, it's pretty much a standard movie, a classic one, it has all the ingredients Hollywood loves, and uses all the time, but it's very loveable, however not a cinematic masterpiece.Now what really makes this movie so good apart from the good story, is the two leading actors, Drew and Adam are just simply great together here, their chemistry is so good that all the romantic scenes goes directly to your head, and heart. I must admit i didn't think that they could do as good a job as they did in Wedding Singer, but this is actually just as good, if not even better, it's been a while since i saw that last, but this is a great performance from both. Sometimes all these romantic comedies Hollywood produces seems to be manufactured so much that you can almost feel the kliche, they all appear to be copies of each other, and most of them are blatant failures on the box office as well among normal audience, still they manage to release more of these than any other genre, however once in a while there are some that are unique, this is one of them. Even though this is a romantic comedy, it is actually in its own way rather original, well sure it has a few kliches and it is very predictable, but it has a different moral and a more intelligent angle than some of the others i thought, and besides from that it is well done. One thing i liked very much is that they weren't trying to hard on the humour, as many others in this genre does, and fails.In the later years i have thought Adam Sandler has been running around in a little room, doing only the same roles over and over again, just in a different scenario, i guess this is yet another one of those, but what is there to say, Drew makes him shine as a star. And he returns that and makes Drew shine as well.The movie works mostly because the romantic part is so good, that makes the dumb humour that are there to fade very far into the background, which makes it a loveable movie, rather than a dumb movie.8/10

There's a lot of fun in it, one thing is that the 'human beings' in this animation picture, all look like chickens! Only Americans can make animation movies so maturely a motion picture. Not at all a movie to teas the kids, except that the funny figures can attract them a lot. But the chicken's crying of 'freedom' make you think what? 'Brave Heart' for me. This is an eternal slogan for all, admit it or not.

Beautiful Creatures , is an American film obviously! which came in a failed attempt ( commercially ) to replace the super franchise (in terms of box office only) Twilight mixed with many and few positive reviews it's hard not to get back foot and even give up to see , good to my surprise Beautiful Creatures was no longer a cloying and forced film, primarily the similar characteristics with the Twilight Saga are minor , the films together are so divergent that only weak minds with prejudice will say that this is a copy of another , probably not even bothered to pay attention to BC to analyze differences . BC begins to walk in front , with a beautiful photo, beautiful special effects, beautiful sets and costumes , beautiful performances both veterans as beginners , beautiful art direction , beautiful soundtrack ( sung and instrumental ) and beautiful scenes , everything is so beautiful that makes the name of the movie does not want to leave . The film captivates with mode whose history is presented and developed , the protagonist convinces their role and form together with your loved one a beautiful romantic couple is noticeable to see many flaws in this movie , although not very loud to the point of making is a bad movie , but they are loud enough to let the distracted very confused, the main flaw is the bad times completed, which give them an air of unfinished, and this is obviously done with all the pressure to make a second film leaving this first as a backdrop of film sequences, which unfortunately due to low collection can will not happen. Overall BC is a great film with a strong cast and a good story, but their inconsistencies leave the same to be desired.

First off, unlike so many posters and reviewers, I have not read Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice", nor have I seen the storied BBC miniseries starring Colin Firth, who apparently was to-die-for in a wet shirt. I approached this film knowing very little about the story or characters, beyond the most important plot points, and the fact that critics generally liked it. I liked it too; it was very enjoyable. The film has an absolutely terrific cast, including Academy Award-winning screen veterans Dame Judi Dench and Brenda Blethyn, and should-be Academy Award-winning Donald Sutherland; the young cast is led by Keira Knightley, Rosamund Pike (the allegedly more-attractive older sister), and Matthew MacFayden. All are terrific, although, as a man, the constant giggling of the Bennett sisters was occasionally too much. The film is gorgeously shot, and should earn Oscar nominations for set design, cinematography, and perhaps an acting nomination or two (Knightley is first in line, with Sutherland (whose part may be too small), Blethyn, and Pike not far behind). I give this film a strong recommendation, and a 9/10.

If you are looking for lots of action, this film is not for you. On the other hand if chocolate is your favourite confection, you will forgive this omission and simply drool over the close-ups of delicious-looking shiny chocolates in every conceivable shape and form. Apart from a scene where an arsonist decides to set fire to a river boat. much of the film centres around the setting up of a new shop in a French provincial town. Monsieur le Comte (Afred Molina) is the mayor whose aim in life is to keep the little town morally safe, in utter tranquillity, and to reject outsiders who might possibly not abide by the Ten Commandments and consequently upset the peace of the populace.Into this sleepy town come Vienne (Juliette Binoche) and her young daughter who together transform a rather dusty old shop into a most attractive store specialising in chocolate. Alas! Alas! It is the season of Lent and no parishioner should be tempted by such delicious trifles. It is the work of the devil, thinks the mayor, and he accuses Vienne and threatens her. "I'll have you out before the end of Lent!"The story is simple but charming. There are some nice characters, and some odd ones too. Vienne's kindness and generosity win the hearts of the locals who sneak into her little shop. The local young priest who is dominated by the mayor is an interesting charater, rather unsure of his arguments at the confessional with the man and his dog. I don't know why Johnny Depp undertook such a small role as a guitar-playing itinerant. I had hoped to see more of him.In one of the final scenes when the mayor gets an uncontrollable craving for chocolates, the film moves into utter farce which I felt spoilt the over all tenor of a charming film.

Well, what can we say? It's Doc Hollywood on wheels.Only not quite. The Michael J. Fox original was the story of a lone man with no soul, who was kindly provided one by the inhabitants of small-town America. It's about the development of an individual.Pixars' Cars, on the other hand, is the story of a small town in need of re-energizing, which is kindly provided an infusion of energy by a lone man..er, car. It's about the development of a community.This difference affects not only the individual characterizations, but the overall thrust of the narrative, the humor, even the artwork. The foreground characters sometimes disappear into vast landscapes, particularly during an extended middle digression of some ten or so minutes in which Sally Porsche, our heroine, introduces Lightning McQueen to the virtues of small town life, meandering along Route 66, quaint hotels, and the painted desert.For all its occasional preachiness about the glories of small-town life, and the need for inspiring heroes are good by virtue of their character rather than their athleticism, at no time is your heart in danger here: there's nothing like the poignancy of Buzz Lightyear's fall in Toy Story, much less Jesse's reminiscence scene in Toy Story 2. There's not even the real tension and family feeling of Finding Nemo. Cars don't have families, and struggle though they have to personalize these mechanisms, the Pixar animators simply can't add the rough physicality necessary to convey broad emotion to something which has to keep 4 wheels on the ground. It's fine popcorn fare, sometimes amusing, and harmless fun.

My grandson advised me to watch this movie. I'm not much of a movie watcher but was greatly impressed with the movie. I was employed by a major company in the late 60's This movie occurred a little before that. I was actually a teen when John Glen took his trip into space. I and many other blacks had no knowledge of this crew of women and how they contributed to the NASA project. In the late 60's, there were race riots and lots of racial conflicts. I remember in my senior year, Westinghouse Electric was located in a black community but had no black employees. They came to the black high schools and wanted the top 3 stenographers from each school to apply to their company. This was based on efforts from the community to hire black employees. We were tested. We all had to have 3.8-4.0 QPA's and be able to type 80-100 words per minute and transcribe at 100 wpm. I was 1 of the lucky ones. I had an academic diploma with business classes as my minor. Ten women were hired. I was so excited. But the minute I walked out on the floor, all eyes were on me. There were no black/white bathrooms, but we were pushed to the back of the line and not allowed to use the mirrors until all the white girls had left the restrooms. It wasn't a rule, but we were shoved to the back. We were laughed at and talked about in front of our faces. But under no circumstances was I going to allow somebody else to take this job away from me. We took it! We were treated like we were from a 3rd world country. The white girls didn't even know how to change the typewriter ribbons. Their typing speeds only had to be 45-50 to get in. Shucks, I had to be the best! I was awed to have typed on the IBM Selectric typewriter. The same one in the movie! But we had to care for their machines as well as our own. In high school we only had manuals. Eventually I went to Univ of Pgh. to study accounting at night. I took all of the courses required to get out of the steno pool, but was consistently turned down 10 years trying to become an Accounting Clerk. While whites with less education and less seniority were chosen over and over again over me. I had to type for the controller, because of my super fast, error free statistical typing skills while his secretary filed her nails and poured coffee. Of course, I was never paid what she made. To make a long story short, we black women stayed. Some of us for 40 years. It took years before we were looked at like humans--before people would talk to us, eat at the same lunch table, sometimes they would make us wait last to get on the elevators to go home. But over the course of 10- 40 years, we earned that respect. We did become manager secretaries. We did earn engineering degrees at night and worked our way up. We did end up with white women becoming our best friends. We became their bridesmaids instead of their maids. We went to their parties, instead of cleaning up after the parties. This movie may make some people uncomfortable, and perhaps you don't believe it was like that for smart black women, actually any black person. But believe me, I am a living witness at age 67 to recall the bigotry and hatred I once experienced as a young woman 18 years old, only to retire from the company with much respect. Many of my friends that started when I started, are still in touch. We always laugh and say "We were the first." Because we knocked down those walls of prejudice and differences and created a path for people of all colors to follow. I loved the movie. I only wished that those women had been recognized a little sooner for their contributions to the NASA PROJECT. The portrayal of bigotry and indifference is real. It really did happen in the 60's. As a child I remember the black/white bathrooms--not being allowed in Howard Johnson's on the turnpike and going shopping in the department store via the back warehouse door. Katherine was older than me. Did she run almost a mile to the bathroom? Maybe, maybe not. But don't judge this movie based on that. Some real prejudices were worse than that. History cannot be changed, only learned about. I am proud to be a part of that growing history along with Katherine.

The first I saw this picture I really blew it because I had to do something else mattered then and just messed it up by taking a brief look at its end. Although a while later I gave it chance to watch and once I did it I got really nailed-up! How wonderfully this was shot! How similar the main actor is to me!The most important issue should be pointed out is how realistically Edward Norton acted in a tired-of-life guy's role and how mischievous Brad Pitt was in there. As much in all movies I have seen from Brad Pitt as I can think of as a person who's been able to live up the role assigned to him like Se7en, O11. His self-ego must be having a quality giving a chance to any kind of role in Cinema.I too much highly recommend it for all generation because it won't ever be forgotten. (10 +++ / 10)

Amidst all the clamor about "star's" personal lives, I must say, Brad Pitt is the very handsome (wish he could have been like) Robert Redford type person in this film (as he was in The River Runs Through It) that makes us girls drool. The music is worth a full box of Kleenex, alone. It is beautiful to look at. Anthony Hopkins continues to amaze. The relationship with the heart melting Bayou woman is heavenly. The "twist the tables on the creep" part is grand. Plus, you will never look at peanut butter the same way again. I remember when the film came out, all the buzz was that it was a disaster and that it was too long. Another problem with it was the, "why do they feel the need to remake such a wonderful film?", problem. What gets me, in my old age, is that nobody ever stops to remember and realize that ***BROADWAY*** is always reviving the best of the plays and musical comedies with all new casts and sometimes variations on a theme and people don't stir up such a ruckus. In fact, now they have a "Tony" category for them. I had better get the DVD. I always watch this when I see it's on. I guess owning the soundtrack is not enough.

I know that some of this movie was messed around with. If you read an actual biography, you will find some inaccuracies, but that doesn't matter because this movie is about the personal dreams of the average guy. Rudy Ruettiger is a young guy whose family works in a steel mill and Rudy is probably doomed to that life. It's not terrible but it is dangerous (Rudy's best friend dies) and the young guy wants a better life. He is a very good high school football player with a lot of heart, but this will probably be the end of his playing days. Rudy is a disinterested student, so his chances of even getting into college are almost nil. When a group of seniors are going on a college trip to Norte Dame, he is not allowed on the bus. But he has a dream and he heads off to South Bend and tries to talk his way in. He ends up going to Holy Cross, a nearby school, and he is told that if he can get high grades, they will look at him again. Well, we all know the story. He qualifies academically. He manages to get on the scout squad at Notre Dame by showing that he is willing to nearly kill himself to impress the coaches. But they won't give him a chance to play in a game, which means he isn't actually a true member of the historical powerhouse. Until something happens. If you've never seen this, go for it.

This is Thor as it should have been!!! This time the filmmakers didn't fear going all the way with the fantasy aspect of Thor and that paid off big time. The production design of Asgard is spectacular. Alan Taylor is a better fit the Kenneth who could handle the Shakespearean part of Thor but i thought he was lacking in the action department, and what's with all those dutch angles!!! Chris Hemsworth owns the role of Thor and after seeing him in Rush I think that he is not just a movie-star but also a good actor with potentials to be great. As for the other actors, Tom Hiddleston as Loki shines in every scene that he is in, showing amazing emotional depth, especially after one of the movie's many twist. The rest of the cast are well suited for there roles and Kat Dennings is still annoying but cute. The bad guy is somewhat weak in my opinion especially if you consider the fact that he followed Loki as the main villain. In conclusion the movie is very good with amazing action and some genuinely funny moments...and speaking of funny prepare your self for one amazing cameo by an avenger. 8/10

By definition, Gravity is a technical wonder. All of the details were meticulously orchestrated by Alfonso Cuaron in a very masterful way. Given the incredible work that was put into this part of the film, it's quite understandable that the story is a bit overshadowed, at least in my estimation. It's not a bad story by any means and the fight for survival is always an interesting enough subject to portray in cinema, especially when you take into account the complications that our leading star goes through. Still it fails to impress when compared to some more complex stories at this year's Oscars. As far as other aspects go I must say that Sandra Bullock handles her role very well as she brings a lot of intensity throughout the entire 90 minutes of the movie. Much like Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years A Slave, although in different circumstances, Bullock is the central focus of the movie and therefore must be very convincing. There are mostly two aspects that I'd like to highlight in the movie. The first is the amazing job Alfonso Cuaron did directing the film. You could really tell this was a passion project and the end result was something quite outstanding. On the other hand though, one can't be a little turned off by the simplistic story of survival in outer space, one that while well constructed, ultimately fails to capture the dark yet beautiful magic of the world that is Gravity.Rating 8/10

Much well-deserved vitriol has been poured upon Prometheus by so many reviewers, it is not necessary to rehearse these critiques. I would like to add a brief comparison with the original Alien (1979), which is revealing as to the relative qualities of the two films and the general progress of Hollywood zeitgeist. (spoilers for 'Alien' alert).First some prominent similarities, not to say homages/re-hashes...Rag-tag crew rocks up on Alien planet and snoop aroundAlien'impregnation' and 'birth' central to the plotDodgy android getting his head knocked off, then having a chatNow for some telling and unfortunate differences...The Crew: The Alien crew are often foolhardy, panicky or misguided, but then they are a bunch of miners tossed into an unexpected and shocking situation entirely unprepared, so their behaviour is believable. What's more they have an easy familiarity with each-other and humour that makes them sympathetic human beings. In contrast, the Prometheus crew, despite being highly qualified professionals, if anything behave much more stupidly and inexplicably than the original crew - there is little evidence of protocol or scientific rigour, not to mention common sense. More importantly they lack any semblance of humanity and likability - they are an atomized group of plot-drivers playing pass-the-stupid-ball.The Androids: Ian Holm plays the android in Alien as officious, dispassionate and if anything slightly irritable - the genius of the role and performance is that you believe him as a human, but you also totally buy it when you discover that he was a robot all along. His motivation for letting the alien on board against protocol is entirely explained - he is a machine, totally loyal to corporate interest and indifferent to the lives of the humans on the ship. Michael Fassbender's android is a crass and faintly ridiculous caricature, who despite frequent references to his inability to feel emotions constantly has resentment or amazement written all over his face. Like the original android he wantonly endangers the crew by bringing nasty unknown alien stuff aboard; however in the case of Prometheus the crew includes the owner and financier of the mission (and his only child), making Fassbender's actions entirely insane, unless we assume that he has malfunctioned and now wishes to kill his programmer.Dramatic tension and pace: Alien takes its time establishing dramatic tension, introducing the crew without fanfare and with little sign of the horrors to come. Prometheus immediately shows us the beef, which although visually entertaining, completely destroys the sense of reveal about the deadly/creative effects of the black goo. In Alien, tension is established and broken deliberately, as when the crew laugh together just before the alien 'birth', momentarily lulling the viewer into a false sense of security which serves to heighten the shock of the event. In Prometheus tension is never established, and what little there might be is broken incessantly by accidental absurdities, like the enthusiastic determination of the biologist to touch the hostile alien snake, or the eager cheerfulness of the pilots upon learning of the necessity of suicide.The Politics: Alien was enhanced by a powerful undercurrent of political commentary on the present-day society. The corporation - aptly represented both by the literally heartless ship's medic, and the abstract 'computer-says-no' protocols that force the crew's compliance - is the other great enemy in the film, and the android's admiring description of the alien is a subtle but powerful critique of the amoral competitive mentality that was increasingly dominating business and politics. Of course the message is even more resonant today. Prometheus loses any semblance of political commentary in a swirl of arbitrary events and cosmological ideas too big to possibly explore satisfactorily – instead of a coldly acquisitive company we have a delusional old geezer, and a cheap re-hash of tired Pandora's Box / Tower of Babel / Frankenstein / Curiosity Killed the Cat themes that frankly were much more effectively done in (for instance) the Indiana Jones films.In conclusion, Alien is a darkly effective and relevant movie that hints at a much greater universe and mystery in a way that enriches the film, while the similar ambitions of Prometheus are thwarted by a convoluted plot, poorly described characters, and the simultaneous over-exposure and under-explanation of the enigmatic and 'profound' elements.

This is a comedy movie. And the best Matthew Perry can do is being tricked by Bruce Willis. It's like James Bond meets Chaplin in a tangled up story.But the story is good. It take a stroll about neighborhood affair, to mob business, friendships, love, etc. And it's hardly to predict the ending, if it wasn't a comedy movie.So there you have it; the whole good casts in a food plot. The fault is only the genre. If it's an action movie or a suspense, it certainly will give more grips and sweat to watch.This is indeed a movie made to be watch and fun to enjoy. Weekdays night movie, I choose!

You endure a lot of torturous scenes hoping for a good, at least logical conclusion... but no, the one who is supposed to be the hero quits. Padre Rodrigues not only completely undermines the sacrifices made by his and God's followers, but he commits heresy and leads many, many souls astray by caving in and writing against his own Faith. Liam Neeson's performance is pitiful. I suppose that's a testament to how this usually good actor battled with his own conscience and could not act his way out of it. Andrew Garfield is a big let-down in the second part of the movie. Again, all that build up for not only being a quitter, but a traitor in the worst way you can be. THIS MOVIE IS A FRUSTRATING WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, at the theater or at home.

The Dark Knight is a 2008 superhero action film directed, produced, and co-written by Christopher Nolan. Featuring the DC Comics character Batman, the film is the second part of Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy and a sequel to 2005's Batman Begins, starring an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Morgan Freeman. In the film, Bruce Wayne/ Batman (Bale), James Gordon (Oldman) and Harvey Dent (Eckhart) form an alliance to dismantle organised crime in Gotham City, but are menaced by a criminal mastermind known as the Joker who seeks to undermine Batman's influence and create chaos.

Yes, Lincoln has certainly pandered to the awards academies, racking up a formidable 12 nominations at the Oscars next month. Most of it's gong chances are debatable, but there's one performance that is more than worthy of a 13″ inch golden fella.Let's just get it out of the way, Daniel Day-Lewis is the beating heart of the film, the commandeering force behind it's successes. His stalwart depiction of Lincoln is awe-inspiring and unparalleled, even by his own legendary standards. Think back to his moustachioed villain Bill the Butcher in Scorsese's Gangs of New York. Flamboyant, erratic, and equally Oscar tipped, that knife wielding maniac is the antithesis of Lincoln, and Day-Lewis is equally unrecognisable. He plays the president of towering stature with a reedy, borderline warbling tenor, yet incongruously still embodies Lincoln's well documented charisma and affability. It's difficult to attest how historically veracious it all is, but the performance is so astonishing in fact, that it is rendered invisible; as if Spielberg has stumbled upon a time machine and gone back to pick up the bona-fide bearded lawman.Usually such a consummate performance would render any other performances obsolete, but not here. Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as the po-faced and silver tongued radical Thaddeus Stevens, the staunch opponent of slavery who helped reach the momentous verdict with his political prowess. It could be quite a dowdy slog to the attested outcome, but the appearance of James Spader and John Hawkes as conniving spin doctors gives the film some desperately required levity.If Day-Lewis is taciturn, Sally Field is the portent thespian, portraying the psychologically perturbed first lady with raw emotional impulse in a performance that borders from the cerebral to the melodramatic. It's far from a romantic film, but Spielberg doesn't cower away from presentation of Lincoln as a complex family man, torn between doing what is good for the country and good for the home (which includes a bit-part from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as reluctantly drafted son Robert).The sole issue Lincoln suffers with is it's smacks of self-effacement. A worthy picture on a worthy subject – from the quotidian American populist filmmaker, no less – some of its' plaudits are more akin to tokenism than genuine merit. John Williams' drab and utterly forgettable scoring, Kaminski's mundane cinematography, Michael Kahn's serviceable editing. None of these aspects are particularly bad, but they're hardly gong-worthy. It also comes woefully close to a bore whenever Jones or Day-Lewis aren't lingering in the frame. Fortunately, that isn't often enough to dampen your engagement in the story, or the peculiarly nail biting amendment verdict.While the film won't go down in the history books, it's handling of a difficult subject matter, and that awe-inspiring central performance certainly will. While I much prefer Spielberg in 'fun for all the family' mode, this adult chamber drama has a profound resonance, which makes it well worth watching.Read reviews, interviews and the like over at www.theframeloop.com