Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

"You join us tonight for a title bout that I've really been looking forward to. Two grand fighters, The Narrator (who looks similarly like Edward Norton) and Tyler Durden (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Brad Pitt). I must confess to missing the first two minutes of the match as I stopped off to get popcorn, so I as enter the ringside I find the fight is already well underway.ROUND ONE: Norton leads the show as a man addicted to self-help groups. This puts his initial sparring on a shaky, slightly unbelievable footing, where his overstated jabs of ironic juxtaposition never really seem to hit the target. He runs round the ring stealing dream sequence and overlaid narrative tactics from recent championship matches, particularly the recent Trainspotting vs. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels title fight. It's a shock that he would borrow heavily from some English fighters, but we must remember that the backer behind this clash is David Fincher. Fincher has worked well with English fighters before, most notably when they had their guts eaten out in Alien3.ROUND TWO: Norton continues to lead, and from the horrified looks on the judge's faces his pseudo-literary, semi-pretentious dialogue is a little too strong for so early on in a fight. Yet Norton is giving his all as the morose, nerdy, slightly monotone clerk and all the effort is there to see - in fact I've never seen such savage hitting.ROUND THREE: Pitt has begun to put up a bit of a fight, his boxing style an odd clash of macho thuggery and streetwise intelligence. However, his slightly effeminate tone of voice means he's not really pulling this particular style off, and it could cost him the match. Doubters at the edge of the auditorium, though, should be reminded that he pulled off such a style in Kalifornia, and he stole that bout clear away from David Duchovny. Yet it must be said that to win this fight he has to give it a lot more edge.ROUND FOUR: The style of the match has changed, as Norton and Pitt have decided to set up their own underground "fight club", where the reality of living is confirmed by the feel of pain and physical violence. Here Pitt really starts to rule the ring, knocking Norton back into a rope-a-dope by introducing to the match a subtle homoerotic subtext that Norton did not see coming. I really believe this could be the end of the match, especially as Pitt follows up this vicious assault by showing off his six-pack and sleeping with Helena Bonham-Carter.ROUND FIVE: The fight seems to be flailing in all directions now, the spectators being forced to pay attention by the displays of violent bloodletting with an art-house style, yet wondering how long Pitt can keep up his new ruse - overstated moralising and plot justification. It's anyone's fight now and we just hope they can stay the distance.ROUND SIX: Pitt has started to lose his edge here, and tries a "surprise twist" uppercut, yet Norton, like the rest of the audience, has seen it coming a mile off and effortlessly ducked from the swing. But wait - what's this? Pitt has delivered a second "surprise twist" uppercut, and this time NO-ONE saw it coming! Norton is down for the count! Never have I seen such a format-changing conceit in a mainstream bout - this has completely changed the whole face of the fight, and Norton is spending all his time trying to stay awake, reeling from one situation to another and bouncing off the ropes. Suddenly this has turned into a fight to remember.ROUND SEVEN: There's really nothing left of this match now, though Pitt does well with neat little jabs like showing off a billboard sign for Seven Years in Tibet, the bout that saw him flop both in the ring and at the titlematch box-office. There's also mention of the horror of sitcoms, and as we all now Pitt's girlfriend stars in one of those, leaving Norton no room to manoeuvre amongst Pitt's self-referentiality. Norton flails around with trying to overstate the "ironic" humour once more in the match, but Pitt has justified the entire bout with this final display. As Norton hits the canvas, this is not up to the standards of classic matches, such as the Rumble in the Jungle between Rashomon and The Maltese Falcon, but is still a fight that I think a lot of people are going to be interested in seeing and are going to be talking about for a long time to come. I thought this match was going to be won on points (8/10), but in the end, I have to declare it very much a knockout".

I saw this film on a transatlantic flight recently. I saw Flashdance on a plane journey back in 1984. I thought this would be the British version of that movie some 17 years later but set back in 1984 just to prompt my memory. Seemed like a piece of history repeating itself for me.I grew up in the north-east of England so I can relate to most of the scenery, accents etc. very well. Then came the unexpected bits. Firstly, Billy's grandmother suffering from dementure and wandering off...just as my mother used to do. And secondly, the scene that I'm still trying to cope with. Billy visiting his mother's grave. This grave was set in the same graveyard my parents are now interred. These are very hard things to cope with at 37,000 feet surrounded by lots of people at close proximity all of whom are strangers.And I suppose I was right in a way, it had some of Flashdance in it. But for different reasons to most I will always find this movie, most memorable.

I really cannot understand why films like "Kill Bill" which are based on so much blood and gore are so popular... "Kill Bill" in particular, is 90% ugly scenes and 10% anything else. What is exactly interesting or artful in watching a comatose girl being raped, and then seeing her bite the tongue out of her rapist's mouth?In order to be fair, I must accept that the direction of the film is good. But what difference does this make, when the film in itself is completely unwatchable? I don't object to bloody scenes being shown in a film, provided that they serve some purpose in the plot, and they do not constitute the film's purpose instead (as it happens here).In brief, I find Tarantino completely overrated; what's more, in this film he goes way too low even by his standards. If "Kill Bill" wasn't directed by him, and no stars appeared in it, it would be a typical B-movie. Needless to say, I won't even think about watching Vol. 2. Verdict: 3/10.

and then came home and watched the first 3 movies. And after a lot of thought I'm going to have to say, and it hurts me so, that this movie has disappointed me. Not because it wasn't a well executed play of computer graphics (I really liked the effects) and intense action, but because that's about all there was to it.The original movies made it so much easier to get involved with the characters. And while Return of the Jedi had the annoying Ewoks, at least it finished up the tale and fate of Luke and his father.But The Phantom Menace was just too childish, even for my children ages 7 and 10. Some very unbelievable luck, a largely annoying (dumb) side-kick, some rather disappointing revelations of the once-mystic Force, and some very dry acting left me feeling lost. Why George? For me, it is like losing a friend. I'm going to pretend I didn't see it, and that only the original trilogy was all that has ever existed and that the Force is as Yoda explained in the Empire Strikes Back.

I don't care what the critics say. This is one of my favorite fiction movies. Danny Madigan falls into the screen of the cinema right in the middle of his favorite movie! Reality and fantasy all the time, all in one. It can be easily compared with Back To The Future. Imagine a mirror, reality at one side, fantasy at the other, and at the same time they inter-cross! Very smart movie. Great actors. Too much characters. A mixture of comedy and action. Awesome soundtrack! I think it has everything that any movie of this kind must have, and more. This movie makes you ask yourself how could someone imagine such story. Too much fun. Great for a lazy afternoon.

I have been a fan of HK movies since I was really young. I basically grew up with HK movies. So, I couldn't pass up on a chance to see this movie that everyone was talking about.Don't get me wrong. The story was great. The music was really beautiful. But Oscar? Come on! I saw many other HK movies with the same or better quality/ plot, etc and they never got any nomination. Why? Because no one actually pays attention to HK movie until very recently. And all of the sudden, people see this movie and go "Oh WOW!"If you are a true fan of a HK movie, you'll probably feel the same way as I do. Many HK movies are really beautiful. OK. This one is also beautiful. Although I have to say that the flying sequences were a little bit too fake. NO I am not saying that "People can't fly'. If you are a fan of HK movies, you are probably used to people flying all over the places. It's not just this movie, most of the movies that has something to do with ancient Chinese Kung Fu has people flying (or do a lot of other "impossible" things.) But the problem is, I saw better movie where the flying sequence makes me more comfortable. I mean, this one, especially the part where Chow flew down the waterfall... just really reminds me of how Superman makes his landing. What I am saying is, this movie is not so bad. But I saw better movies and they never got any nominations. Don't get me wrong. Story was good. Music was great. Some action sequence was annoying because they look fake. I like the movie. I love the music. I actually went to look for soundtrack CD right after the movie. But overall, I'd give a B/B+. For the nominations: Definitely overrated. Go to your local Chinese store and try renting some other beautiful HK movies. I am sure they have a great selection for you to choose from. And you will know that this movie is getting too much credits than it deserves.

Wow this was really bad. I really liked Star Trek from 2009 but this was bad. In fact I have never written a review before but this time I had to.In fact Im not even gonna keep this in my Star Trek collection. Im gonna forget that this movie exist.The picture quality was bad and so was the whole atmosphere. The acting was really bad and it felt like a high-school project.Their make-up and appearance looked hilarious. Whats up with Kirks lips? The plot was really bad, bad, bad!So do yourself a favor and watch something else instead.

Wow! What a movie! For me, this was the perfect execution of what fascinated me in the Road Warrior. It's like Miller managed to extract exactly that, then enhanced it multiple times over and made the perfect movie out of it.For a film that basically two hours of non-stop action, it it filled to overflowing with all these amazing little details. Every character, no matter how short their lives on screen, has quirks. They are identified. Every car is an individual piece of art. Nothing is explained, everything is shown. And amongst this perfect storm Max himself is just a background character. Fantastic.

It was a good movie, i don't see the big deal. I like all types of movies, even dumb comedies, and i think this one was one of the best dumb comedies in a long time. I don't see how its racist, its all in good fun. And this movie is a far better, far funnier movie than napoleon dynamite, which was one of the reasons i almost didn't see this. That being said, there were a few things about the movie that turned me off, the farting in the movie was incredibly pointless, and i didn't like that Jared Hess seems to want to be Wes Anderson really bad. But overall a really funny movie, if you're into that type of thing. I definitely see why some people wouldn't enjoy it though.

The movie title is Trainwreck and anyone concerned with protecting traditional family values will clearly recognize why in the movies opening scene where Amy (Amy Schumer) and Kim's (Brie Larson) wayward father Gordon (Colin Quinn) explains to them that it is not normal to play with the same doll for the rest of your life, drilling into them the concept that monogamy isn't realistic. The movie quickly accelerates 23 years to Amy's adult life where she maintains that heartless motto with an enthusiasm that torpedoes the foundations of "moral" values with vigorous contempt. Amy clearly has some commitment issues. She has no problem going home with men and has no problem taking them home either, but she will not let them sleep over and likewise she will quickly dismount and leave any prospect swiftly. She seems to only be concerned with satisfying her own sexual appetite, but completely fears any type of emotional relationship or intimacy of any kind. She seems to avoid any and all non-sexual contact, completely dreading that she might develop feelings and hence producing the chemicals that bond people together. On the other hand her sister Kim has betrayed Amy and their father by falling in love and marrying. Amy holds her sister Kim in contempt and treats her as if she hated her father for her treacherous decision to fall in love and start a family. Meanwhile, Amy enjoys, boozing, smoking pot, many men, and working for a insipid magazine called Snuff. Snuff is a sensationalist magazine that appeals to the lowest base desires of men by offering them gossip and taboo sexual advice. The work environment is also distorted as the lead editor Dianna (Tilda Swinton) likes to keep the environment apprehensive and cut-throat throughout the duration of the film. However, once Amy is assigned to write about a sports surgeon Dr. Aaron Conners (Bill Hader) who treats several famous athletes this Manhattan girl will finally start to develop feelings for a man. Nonetheless, her sense of separateness and distrust for feelings will make it difficult for her to return any sentiments of love and affection; regardless of how much you love Amy, she will have a difficult time loving you back. Eventually Amy will begin to realize that her life is a train-wreck and that she needs to clean up her act. Several events occur that cause Amy to start down a new path in her life, but I will leave those details out of this analysis so I don't spoil too much of the film. Nevertheless, I should not recommend this movie due to its adult subject material and its mortification of traditional values. However, I suspect that you will want to watch this movie anyways because you will probably find it extremely funny (unless you really are slighted by corrupted real-isms) and because you are not as moral as you tell yourself, you are. The movie also has appearances by Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Marisa Tomei, LeBron James as himself, John Cena as Steven one of Amy's many men, Method Man, and a few others. - Enjoy

I watch a lot of animation and somehow had not like any movie so much that I would take the pain to login and write a review. I liked Finding Nemo and the lion king. Shrek/Shrek 2 were not bad. But this one raises the bar .. the movie does not slow down/stretch anywhere .. something funny is happening all the time .. its happening fast .. Nothing is repeated .. in fact i felt it could have been longer. Every character has a unique personality. My favorite one: The lemur king - "self proclaimed blah blah blah etc. etc. .." king Julian .. you will love him :)

The chase on the rooftops in Istambul was first seen in 'The International' (granted, here they are not on motorbikes, but it's hardly original). The chase scenes inside the bazaar are cheaply made (i.e it is obvious they are 'green screen-ing' it). The whole thing would have been better if he was saving Severine instead of 'M' but that's another story. Casino Royale, and Quantum of Solace were markedly better IMHO. The villain is OK (although he was much more convincing in No Country for Old Men, as the script was far more superior). London/Scotland are very dry, uninteresting places for a final face off.

This movie had me really excited, as the Prisoner of Azkaban was my favourite book. But in the end I was really, honestly disappointed.Another reviewer claimed that this was the best Harry Potter yet. I claim the exact opposite-- I think it's the worst. It was horribly shortened, and many scenes were altered to fit Hollywood standards. Practically everything was turned into a joke, even the things that really shouldn't have been.I also think that the appointment of this new Dumbledore was a dreadful mistake. While he certainly redeems himself a bit in the fifth movie, in this one, he was the opposite of what I imagined of his character (albeit, it was much worse in the fourth). He was hardly the gentle, soft-spoken, graceful wizard I had envisioned, or that was portrayed in the 1st and 2nd movies, which, in my opinion, were the best.The scene in the Shrieking Shack was summarized sloppily and altogether too quickly. Exemplified in this scene was the worst portrayal of Sirius Black we could have hoped for. Sure, we knew he was fervent, anxious to kill Pettigrew and get revenge, but we didn't think of him as insane. And the scene with Lupin turning into a werewolf--they added and awful bit with Sirius telling Lupin something like "This is who you truly are, this heart, in here!", which is hardly the kind of thing you'd be saying as your best friend transformed into a deadly monster.I eventually just turned the movie off. I couldn't watch it anymore. I was awfully disappointed after the stunning accuracy of the first two films. In those, the casting was spot-on, and the accuracy was impressive; here, the casting left a lot to be desired, as did the acting of those who were decent in both the Sorcerer's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets. Hermione seemed eerily preppy ("Does my hair really look like that from the back?"), Dumbledore I've already criticised, and Hagrid--quite the perfect match in all of the other movies--seemed to fall apart in this one. Even Malfoy, who was perfect before, was made into a stereotypical bully here, not the deeper character portrayed in the books.All in all, this was the worst Harry Potter to date, and I would only suggest it to hardcore HP fans or those who are entirely un-picky when it comes to accuracy.

Though this movie has been out quite a while now, I still feel the need to advise you that there will be spoilers in this review.What I loved most about this movie didn't even happen the first time I watched it; it happened the second time! Malcolm, in my first viewing, seemed like a good guy who was using Cole as a surrogate for a mistake he made with a previous child. The movie seemed like Malcolm felt if he could help Cole, it would be like helping the previous child he originally "failed." And Cole, in my first viewing, seemed like a child with a secret that he did not trust Malcolm with. Then we find out that Cole sees dead people, and that Malcolm had been dead for most of the movie.That first viewing was incredibly satisfying. Then, some months later, I watched it with a friend who had not yet seen it. And in that second viewing I experienced a whole new movie. Now it was about a ghost unable to accept the failure that cost him his life, and a boy who did not understand why was trying to understand why this ghost was trying to be more helpful than the other ones; and how they each helped the other to come to terms and accept what they were.Very rarely does a movie give me such an experience, and that is why I have always made it a movie that I have had in VHS, DVD, and now Blu-Ray.

This picture has so much right in it for me... Too many people like being nit-pickers, the only part that confused me was how he stored the Monet without breaking the frame? But I "bleeped" that so as to let the rest of the movie flow, here were two worthy adversaries - Renee as Catherine Banning and Pierce the Producer and Thomas Crown.His Crown character brought to mind the apocryphal story that Alexander The Great wept when there were no more worlds to conquer, ennui is a terrible thing and creates trouble when there is none ... simply to see if it can be overcome! I love the diversion of a botched robbery, how the air-conditioning was disabled to botch the new cameras then the real painting was there all along?? As a Cezanne or Pizarro, LOL!! By Crown himself, laughing at everyone, in a quiet version of the anonymous businessman that he so loved.Even if he didn't have a glide or a private jet to Martinique, he still would've seduced the sequins off of that dress Russo wore, the film was dynamite carefully timed and dovetailed to create an effect like a beautiful domino display that only is realised when the pegs fall into place.Denis Leary as the wanna-be lover of Banning was all too true in life, meet a chick and she seems like the bee's knees, but she has the hots for someone else! Faye Dunaway back in the remake (after a sultry performance in the original as the 1st Catherine Banning), this time as the snide and sarcastic shrink who was just the tonic needed to save Crown/Brosnan from himself - Peter Pan growing up and carrying away Wendy...As for the very end, when Renee Russo thought she lost him for good - sigh - keep them Kleenex handy! Did he stay or did he fly? Get the DVD today!! http://tinyurl.com/3464k/ & http://tinyurl.com/7qvwg/

This is a movie for adults. No action scenes, no overt sex, no car chases or big special effects, yet it managed to keep me fully engaged the full length. It is a human story. Moving and enthralling. I thought the actors well cast and all performances outstanding. The boy who played the young Alan Turing was a standout. Such Talent. There were wonderful supporting characters written throughout the movie who all added a lovely depth and texture to the story. Well researched the look and feel of the movie was true to the era , with lots of nice vintage costumes, cars, interiors etc. it would have been wonderful to have followed the main characters throughout the rest of their lives, to see the impacts of their war experience, but of course that would be impossible given duration restraints. Highly recommended.

Finally a movie worth writing a comment about. It was original and not some three minute remake of an existing movie or a cookie cutter piece of crap. I like the suspense and a cast of unfamiliar faces that doesn't have you thinking of the last movie you saw that super famous type cast actor in. Keeping the how and what of everything that happened before the opening scene makes for a good way stay interested in this film. This movie had that 12 monkey's feel to it but very different. Overall I like it and would recommend this to all who want to spend there time with quality entertainment. I hope to see more original based movies produced, as hard as that is now a days.

Office Space is an excellent movie. It is very funny and is still funny no matter how many times I watch it. The movie is a humorous look into the life of Software Engineers at an evil corporation, Initech. Having been into a similar office and having many friends that are in a similar situation, the movie seems to exemplify everything that is ridiculous in its situation. The protagonist can be very easily identified with, because he is a man that just does not like his job. Plus, he has 8 horrible bosses. Plus, Jennifer Anniston is in this film, and she is very attractive, which doesn't hurt. Anybody that has ever had a job will find this movie hilarious.

It is a pleasure to eventually watch a Bond movie that is not just a quick and dirty actioneer. Especially since the franchise, in its Daniel Craig days, had clearly accepted the Greengrass/Bourne way to shoot action as a basic requirement. All-out action is still here but the other scenes are not just rushed intermezzi. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters here as opposed to the 22 previous instalments.The villain is good. The character is perfectly tailored and brilliantly flesh out by Javier Bardem, but then the script forgets to build an engaging story around him. OK we didn't need a 23rd variation on a plot to rule the World, and it was an interesting idea to have the villain hunt down 007 instead of the usual formula with Bond sneaking inside the villain's base. But this should have been a -suspenseful- beginning, this cannot be a climactic ending.Anyway Craig's Bond really shifts the paradigm. He is a somber agent only enjoying high life and hot gals in between brooding phases. Before Craig 007 was a comics hero, then they wanted to make him more human (the original Casino Royale story more or less implied this), for fear of wearing out the audience expectations after so many sequels, copycats and - worst of all - spoofs. Having grown up with the lighter-hearted Connery and Moore versions it is difficult to feel the same buoyant enthusiasm. Allegedly Licence to kill was a flop because James Bond had suddenly become a violent machine with hardly a sense of humour. Then Brosnan was the silliest of all. Skyfall goes so far as reaching for the hero's youth backstory. Let's say there's a backstory but we don't want to watch 007 with a shrink. Digging up backstories is really a lazy screenwriter's hack job.Fortunately images and action are both great in the last part, but then you feel you was given the wrong medicine. This could have been the setting for a Living dead or Vampire movie shootout, but this bucolic/pyrotechnic ending really doesn't feel like a Bond movie Third Act.So, I can appreciated the different Bond as played by Daniel Craig and I certainly appreciated to watch 007 move around in a more polished product, but I still need some real creative story to be told around these. Is the franchise turning into a series? Including some surprise at the end of the season? Some can't wait to watch Bond 24, not me. My expectations were quite low for Skyfall and I was able to enjoy it despite its flaw, but now I am suspicious, I am expecting them to reproduce only the less good parts.

Lincoln delivers. I could end my review right there, Lincoln delivers. So many things have already been written about this movie but I wanted to share some of my thoughts with the world.Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing, flawless in fact. I've never seen him in a movie that he wasn't flawless in. I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly than that. DDL has made a career of playing strong characters (There Will be Blood) that dominate the screen. But in Lincoln he "cracks the throttle" and plays Lincoln with superb subtlety. President Lincoln is already larger than life, so there's no reason to take the character too far. Instead Daniel Day-Lewis presents a very Presidential Lincoln who is in ultimate control, even if those around him don't know it. If we didn't know President Lincoln was a real person then you would think that this movie was about some kind of impossible superhuman, that's how good DDL is.The rest of the cast is solid, no complaints about Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, or Joesph Gordon Levitt. They all pale in comparison to Daniel Day-Lewis, but that's the point. Sally Field has the thankless role of playing Mary Todd Lincoln, a person that makes Sybil look like a well adjusted woman.Holding this movie back is it's length (2 1/2 hours) and its pacing. To say it straight: this movie is slow. If you're into history/politics/phenomenal acting then you should check this movie out ASAP. But if you're expecting this movie to be anything other than a slow burn you'll be disappointing. Again, if you like There Will be Blood, then you'll probably really like this movie.The only other thing I have complaints about were the ending and it's overly cheesy handling of Lincoln's death (seriously, IMDb better not claim that's a spoiler, I didn't check the spoiler box). I felt that it should have been done differently, we all know how it ends and it could have been done in a more powerful way.Those two "complaints" aside, go see this movie immediately if you've ever liked anything that Daniel Day-Lewis has done. Go see it even if you haven't because he does justice to President Lincoln that no one else could ever do.

After months of hearing strong word of mouth about Boys Don't Cry I finally decided to see if Hilary Swank was deserving of all the praise which has been showered upon her, after viewing Kimberly Pierce's film I must say I was impressed with the powerhouse performance of Ms. Swank and by Chloe Sevigny, both deserve to win the Oscars which they have been nominated for. Hilary Swank's performance reminded me of Linda Hunt's Oscar winning performance in The Year Of Living Dangerously (1983), both women were so outstanding you actually forget that they are not men, I recommend this disturbing but memorable film.

Overall, X2 is a solid blockbuster entry. It has characters that are well thought out and well inhibited by the actors portraying them. There are beautifully sequenced fights and action sequences. And the relationships between the mutant characters is remarkable for a movie this lightweight. But I did have a few major qualms with this movie.First off, it's WAY too long. About thirty minutes too long. It needed to be shorter and more focused. I wasn't really expecting this problem from a Bryan Singer movie as his films tend to zip through start to finish and are usually expertly edited. That's not to say some of the scenes that probably should have been edited weren't good scenes. One scene that comes to mind is the scene at Iceman, Bobby Drake's house, which is completely inconsequential to the real action of the movie and tacks on a good five or ten minutes. There are countless scenes like this that add up to create a large close to 2 1/2 hour movie that you stop caring about the last ten minutes. The first X-Men movie was short and while unfufilling in some respects, didn't wear out it's welcome. It was a great popcorn movie. This one require a popcorn AND a hot dog AND a refill on the popcorn.Secondly, it was preachy. I think everyone got the idea that the only way conflict can be resolved between mutants and humans is that they learn to live together instead of trying to kill each other. I think this is pretty obvious to the audience after the third time someone has a monologue about acceptance, but after the umpteenth time someone gives a speech about acceptance or the lack thereof you wish Wolverine would just claw the speaker to pieces. The only thing I can think of is that maybe it is a veiled attempt at one or many political messages. Christian persecution, gay persecution, mistreatment of minorities & our foreign policy are all ripe for picking but none of these really stick in our mind. So we are left with getting lectured about accepting mutants. And mutants DON'T EXIST! So all this lecturing feels a bit pointless and empty for interpretation by whoever.Finally, my last qualm with this movie is actually an element missing from one of my favorite part of the movie, the wolverine fight scenes. I'm not going to go into any detail about his fight scenes, but let's just say they are much cooler and more intense than in the first one and are easily the edgiest part of the movie. But there was one thing missing...blood. Now I know this is a PG13 movie, but when a human being gets clawed through the chest, there tends to be blood. To not include blood is to lessen our conflicted feelings as Wolverine kills the guys who attack him rather than just disabling them like the other X Men. He's dangerous and hot-headed and not the guy to mess with, and I want to see the blood splatter on his face when he stabs the dude. It doesn't even have to be explicitly violent. Just enough to know that this guy has an edge and a dark side about him that the others don't. As I said, he's dangerous.Anyway, other than that the movie was a very impressive sequel with great acting. And I know it was better than the first, I just didn't connect with it like the first one. I think fans of the first movie should definitely see this one along with non-fans who will like this one better. A nice if overblown blockbuster to start the summer season.

Hey, I enjoyed this film and was pleasantly surprised.I wasn't too sure what to expect as these types of films can be a bit child-like but the makers were very restrained and kept the corn on the cob.There were plenty of likable characters, the humour was mature and the special effects were top notch.I thought Nick Nolte, who was virtually unrecognizable in this role, was excellent.We saw the emergence of a soon to be star in Sarah Bolger, who plays Mallory, the older troubled sister. I'm sure she will go on to bigger and better things.But the real star of the film is Freddie Highmore who plays two roles in the film, doubling as his brother. He's definitely the new Haley Joel Osment. He gives a very real, truthful performance which I found very engaging.There was even a few scary moments where the whole audience jumped which is always great fun Overall a very well made film with a good and satisfying ending, enjoyable for all ages.

Watching Pulp Fiction for the first time I didn't know what to expect. After a couple of viewings though, I realized just how amazing this movie is. The dialogue between Jules and Vincent is some of the best in the history of film. Samuel Jackson was robbed at Oscar time(Martin Landau won it) for sure. Come to think of it so was John Travolta, by Forrest Gump of all people. The out of sync story telling was done in a very clever way. I know it owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick's " The Killing". But Quentin Tarantino still finds a way to make it his own. I could have done without the Gimp and Zed scene. Couldn't Quentin find a better way to have Marcellus Wallace take the hit off of Butch? I mean come on, they happen upon a place where they are going to sodomized, by a cop no less? Didn't seem to fit there at all. The Wolf scene was a bit weak as well. Other than that the actors all turned in stellar performances. I quote this movie more than any other. Helps when you have seen it a few dozen times. Often ripped off(or tried to be ripped off), since its 1994 release. But never even came close to being duplicated. 10/10 for a true film classic that will be loved for years.

I wanted to love this film, believe me. I wanted to embrace it and like it as much as Pierce Brosnan's first two Bond movies, which were nothing short of spectacular. I remember all the anticipation leading up to opening night back in 1999. I thought this was going to be great. Then the day came, the film played, the credits rolled, and for the first time since I began to watch these films, I was disappointed.Granted, there are other duds in the history of the long-running franchise, as conceivably would be in any that reaches twenty installments. "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," and "The Man with the Golden Gun" are some examples. "The World is Not Enough," while still earning a recommendation, lacks the magic carried from "The Living Daylights" to "Tomorrow Never Dies."At first I felt I was not being completely fair, that maybe my expectations were too high after "Tomorrow Never Dies," one of the best constructed and most exciting action films ever made. In fact, "License to Kill" and "GoldenEye" before it were also top five efforts. The more I analyzed it, however, the more I realized that the problem did not lie with my point of view, but with the movie itself. It is not without its successes, but its shortcomings overshadow them.Bond feels responsible for the death of oil tycoon Robert King (David Calder) after unwittingly delivering the murder weapon. After initially placing Bond on injured reserve, M (the always reliable Judi Dench), assigns him to protect King's daughter Elektra (Sophie Marceau). Mi-6 suspects that Renard (Robert Carlyle) a terrorist "whose only goal is chaos," is responsible for King's murder and will target Elektra next. Thanks to 009, Renard has brain-imbedded bullet nullifies pain, but will eventually kill him. There is great potential there, but it is only exploited three times: when Renard holds a "scolding" rock, when he is shot in the arm, and when he punches porcelain furniture during sex. When he is shot, he takes notice, but should not since he has no sense of touch.The positives are many. Pierce Brosnan gives a tremendous performance once again. He is now playing James Bond with great ease, and he uses his brand of Bond ruthlessness more than usual. The special effects are pristine, and the same can be said the stunts coordinated by the legendary Vic Armstrong. The action is mostly enjoyable, except for the underachieving Istanbul climax. There are strong supporting performances and it is nice to see Robbie Coltrane reprise Valentin Zukovsky, whom he played in "GoldenEye." David Arnold, my favorite composer, turns in the best score in the series. It ranges from beautiful, as Bond skis down a mountain slope with Elektra, to tense, as Bond and a companion shoot down the inside of a pipe at 65 miles-per-hour, to emotional, when Bond sees a computer reel of Elektra crying and reaches out as if to wipe her tear. Desmond Llewelyn arrives for one last time as the legendary and beloved gadget master Q."The World is Not Enough" easily contains the longest pre-credits opener in the series, including boat chase on the Thames that is the highlight of the movie. One could argue that it is too long for its own good, but the problem lies even before that. Prior to the chase, a good deal of plot is covered using Backwards Storytelling, a tactic where the filmmakers know the whole story, and create the scenes backwards from there. The problem is that the audience does not know the story yet, so the references are too overwhelming to remember. The rest of the plot builds on them, but the poor structure leaves a shaky foundation.The plot does not unwind smoothly in the first hour. The action does not fit in with the ebb and flow of a movie, seeming to be added in because too much time had passed without an explosion. Somewhere in the mix we meet "Dr." Christmas Jones (fluffy-girl Denise Richards), a nuclear physicist in shorts. I remember shaking my head when I first saw her on screen. Richards is hotter than the Afghan sun, but taking her seriously requires effort.However, the film's biggest problem is the character moments that director Michael Apted was so staunch about. Most of them involve Elektra and her vulnerable side. All too often they occur in bed, where Elektra has this annoying habit of handling ice cubes like a child testing a new sensation. There is one particularly repulsive sex-scene involving Elektra and the ugly Renard. It ends with Elektra whispering "Remember, pleasure," as if it were an advertisement for promiscuity. Raunchiness in Bond movies is not normally a problem, but in this case it distracts and detracts. Had Apted toned this down, the film would immensely improve.Then there are the characters themselves. Of course we like Bond and Valentin, and Judi Dench is always great as M, but the poorly planned villains do not meet standard. Making Elektra draw our sympathy is a good idea at first, but the feeling falls apart when her true colors are shown. Her whole life is a cruel vendetta, so she deserves hate, not sympathy. The same applies to Renard. Apted at times tries to create pathos because of his death sentence, yet Renard is so despicable, we cannot possibly garner a thimble-full of commiseration for him.Should the film be seen anyway? Possibly, some good action, acting, and the great soundtrack provide enough enjoyment; just don't expect it to be anywhere near the quality of its predecessors. I considered withholding a recommendation because it nearly topples under the weight of its many mistakes. It will thrill you early, disappoint, recover, and then bury itself with its poor finale. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So much hype! Well IMDb ratings has it over 8 while it totally bombed in the box office.Reviewers say that the photography is excellent, well, why waste your money, since you can see better photography in Nat Geo HD. All those giving high ratings are probably the pseudo cinema goers. The makers had made the Matrix series, somehow they were more inspired by the 2nd and 3rd part of Matrix than the original. Complex story (like Inception or Shutter Island) is one thing, but trying to make it just so that it seems complex is actually a foolish thing. Every story told even how complex it is should hold the audience in the seat, I took 2 breaks of 30 mins each, that much appealing was the screenplay. And the movie is for 2 and a half hour. You can walk out and walk in anytime and you would still be there. Several stories and all of them had Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, why? Ummm probably saving money or maybe just trying to put up a pseudo complex story. I would probably watch those kiddish vampire movie series compared to a movie which had Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, it is that bad. Even Sucker Punch or Tron Legacy would probably deserve half a more star than this.

I went through a 2-year period were almost all the films I watched were Tim Burton's. My two favourite were Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. Thanks to Tim Burton I now want to be a director. In this period however, I missed this film. I only watched it a couple months ago. And that is something I deeply regret.From the moment the film started I just couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. The plot intrigued and the acting blew my mind. I loved Ewan McGregor in the film and he is now one of my favourite actors. The dialogue was funny at times and it was smart and witty. The visual effects were amazing and the film looked so beautiful. I love the plot, it is different and interesting. I preferred the past scenes more and would have liked to see more of it. The characters were great and amusing. My favourite would be Steve Buscemi's. The ending was great and I loved seeing the fact from fiction. There isn't a bad thing I could say about this film and this is Tim Burton's best. Some may disagree with me on this but this film appealed to me and it is one of my all-time favourites. Acting: 10/10 Dialogue: 10/10 Plot: 10/10 Characters: 10/10 Entertainment Value: 10/10

Brilliantly written and unfathomably cool, this would make a good case for most quotable crime film of all time. Interlocking stories from the seedy side of Los Angeles include ruthless hit men, a gangster's beautiful wife with a roaming eye and a boxer who refuses to take all.Pulp Fiction is the defining film of the 1990s, playfully mixing up its chronology, packed with memorable, snappy, cute dialogue and showing a genuine zest for the art of film-making. Director Quentin Tarantino's film-literacy, learned obsessively during his stint as a video-store assistant, pays off handsomely here; almost every line is quotable, a sense of fun pervades, there's a host of delightful set-pieces (including John Travolta's and Uma Thurman's sexy dance) and generous screen time is given to characters rarely considered at length in film, such as Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson's stolid hit men. Briefly, Tarantino shone brighter than anyone else in the industry, and this film justifies his accolades.

I was really hoping to see a very good movie, having in mind the score I saw on IMDb.These guys must have discovered the way to trick the scoring system of IMDb. I really cannot see how this movie could get its over-8 score without someone tampering with the scoring system...Other comments are useless: I will just say that the actors are ...well...like me and you...and that I was sound asleep half of the movie...I hope this experience (of waiting something from the score and getting the opposite...) will not be repeated many times...

Have I ever watched a more pointless film? It was so bad, I just couldn't bare to watch anymore! Looking from side to side in an attempt to find some inspiration, down at my friends sitting in front of me who were cowering between their knees. I think I only managed to watch about 45 minutes of it! It would have been easier just to walk out. But I braved it. I had to stay to show my toughness. I mean, I wasn't the only one who was purposely looking away, and my pants bursting with brown stuff.I've seen a few horror films that made me jump in the cinema - The Sixth Sense, The Others, The Ring - but never have I been gripped and too frightened to look at the screen like I did whilst watching The Descent. The Descent, is undoubtedly, one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. The beginning sets the scene nicely, a group of female friends reuniting to go on another dare devil adventure, adding a few shocks along the way to set the pace. These were shocking but predictable, so you are always ready during the first part. But it's when they climb into the cave when things become unbearable. There are some horror films where they show too much and end up becoming a joke. This film shows a lot, but the horror is done so effectively. The claustrophobia of the never ending tight cave, the fact that the climbers are all women with nowhere to run. It is all a dream for horror film fanatics. And all this added with a sentimental storyline closing off the film.One lady sitting beside me shouted and cried, "I can't take this anymore" before running out, says it all.A masterpiece that should be an inspiration for potential horror filmmakers

I think I must be in the very small majority of people that neither loved nor hated this movie. In many ways it was skillfully made and well acted. However, the first half of the movie felt like a wacky romantic comedy with an Italian slant. The second half of the movie, however, is set in (of all places) a Nazi death camp. I happen to believe that if you're going to set a movie in the midst of one of the most terrible parts of history, you want to have something say and to do it very carefully. This movie fails in this, I feel. The message of the movie is very trite: "The human spirit can triumph over any adversity" might be a good summary. Rather than being uplifting, though, I found the implausible caperings of Guido and the credulity of his son to be ghoulish and disturbing in a way I doubt was intended by the filmmakers. I'm afraid I can't go along with the premise that the horror of Auschwitz could be covered up with some clever lies and a silly walk.However, I must stress that the movie is artfully made and contains some memorable scenes. The mountain of corpses in the mist was almost as creepy as Guido's final conversation with his friend, the good Doktor Lessing.La Vite e Bella is certainly worth a look; it is, however, neither profound nor historically valuable.

I have been a long time Hulk fan, having watched most of the seventies television series, and followed the comic book for 17 straight years. So naturally, I was eager to see Ang Lee's treatment of my favorite character. On the surface, it would seem that you cannot do much with a character like the Hulk. Here you have a big green guy who goes around smashing things. How can anyone make a good story out of that ?Well, it would seem some people have managed to do just that notably Kenneth Johnson, Len Wein and the writer-of-writers Peter David. Unfortunately with the treatment delivered by Schamus and Lee, this audience member simply doesn't buy it. When I was a kid, the one thing that would intrige me the most was the transformation. Unfortunately when Eric Bana finally manages to get green behind the gils, you get the most uninspired transformation I have ever seen. The plot is average to poor. Some saving graces from the performances of Nolte and Elliot, but Bana as the main character is somewhat lacking in representing the tortured soul that is Bruce Banner. Schamus and Lee seem to have missed the point of the Hulk being a tragic character. The creature seemed to have no soul whatsoever.If you want to see a good Hulk movie, get the DVD release of Kenneth Johnson's 1978 classic. This pales in comparison.Four out of ten stars.

Natural Born Killers, is about a man named Mickey, who meets a young woman named Mallory, they are both desensitized to violence and they fall in love and go on a murderous killing spree. They are later caught and become media superstars. A TV personality named Wayne Gale, follows them around and tries to interview them once in jail so he can really up his ratings while things start to go violent in jail and eventually a riot busts out. Winner of The Pasinetti Award for Best Actress (Juliette Lewis, who plays Mallory) and Special Jury Prize for director Oliver Stone at the Venice Film Festival. The version I saw of Natural Born Killers, was the unrated director's cut which runs four minutes longer than the theatrical cut. The film has some very stylish direction using LSD style sequences as well as using TV clips, animation and even using some black and white filming. The acting is all very good as well and is a nice film to look at cinematography wise. Where the film goes wrong is the script. The film starts out promising and has some very inventive and neat ideas which I liked but the film just started to go more downhill as it went along. There really isn't an awful lot to this film and after awhile all it feels like you are watching is just violent scene after violent scene and it gets tedious and boring. The film also tries to mix humour, action, romance and satire while making a point all into one film and it doesn't really come off working and in some ways I don't always know what they were trying to do. I understand that Oliver Stone, wanted to make a political point with this movie and it does to an extent and the movie is not terrible for reasons I mentioned above (mostly because of the look of the film and acting) but it just got tedious and almost annoying after awhile. The film is also written by Quentin Tarantino, and it lacks his usual great dialog and great screen chemistry some of his characters usually have. It has some of this but it doesn't payoff in the end.

In this film, River Phoenix has narcolepsy... a malady that makes people nod off against their will. It is a perfect image for this film, which makes its entire audience (those that have any taste) fall asleep every five minutes. I saw this film years ago... it left no impression on me. so I decided to try it again. Now I know why it left no impression on me. It is vacuous, puerile, self-indulgent (but that is typical of Van Sant when he is trying to be "artistic"). sloppy, and poorly written - if in fact it WAS written. i get the feeling that half of what I saw was improv... from people who had really very little to say. To be fair, there are a couple of witty scenes... especially the one in the x-shop where the magazine covers come to life; But that is hardly worth anyone's time, and since I have already wasted too much of my own on this film i will stop here. Oh, just in case you think I object to the "subject matter"... not at all, but it has been done so much better in so many ways...

Look, this film was pretty stupid. The plot was pretty unrealistic, Mako would switch from English to Japaniese mid-sentence. The main guy struggled to maintain his Americian accent. They for get the have a GIANT SWORD UNTIL TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY THROUGH THE MOVIE! But none of that matters. This film was OUTSTANDING.Everyone turned in a magnificent showing for the acting, everyone had depth, personality and back story so we could care for them! The story was great. I mean c'mon! Aliens coming from space and robots having to fight them? Haven't seen that! (Unless you count District 9 or every single Japaniese Anime ever made...) But aliens from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and two-person mechs fighting them? THAT IS ORIGINAL. The music was great, outstanding effects (also the effects team who worked on this are working on the new 'Godzilla' coming this May!) and spot-on humour when it's needed! So can i recommend 'Pacific Rim'? YESYESYES!!! Go watch this, It is SO worth your time, watch it with friends and it will be even better! This is an AMAZING MOVIE. And I can't wait for a sequel!

I usually watch horror or action films but as a family we decided to watch this. I really thought it would be dreadful because its romance. But I was completely wrong I honestly think no I know it is the best film I have watched yet.The way it is told is so original and it works so well. The characters are all different giving you at least one person to relate to which I think is important to have. It is such a sad story though and really touching escpecaily between forest and jenny. It is so clever how they get you to know what is happening without showing you. Like the time forest says, her daddy is so kind, he is always hugging and kissing jenny. In the film you can tell she is being child abused and even raped.

But obviously there was a bunch of Hollywood dicks out there who, devoid of ideas (as well as any sparking neurons), decided to make a pile of cash by regurgitating every cliché in the book and then throwing them all into yet another nauseating, USA-centric war movie. Let me put it another way. This film is as bad as it gets - from the detestable characterisation through to the absurd, simplistic story line - and beyond. It is an insult to your intelligence, to German women and to the memory of some very brave Germans (including children) who died defending their homeland in the final months of WW2.When confronted by the murdering, psychopathic sergeant "Wardaddy" and his band of low life degenerates (excluding the obligatory, sensitive mommy's boy), you feel like climbing in there and giving the Germans a hand. I mean, what manner of sorry, disturbed, self-absorbed prick would call himself "wardaddy" anyway? Oh yes, that's right, he's from the US.Quite frankly, I kept watching the movie in the hope that some very accommodating German would put us all out of our misery by taking out "wardaddy", his pig ignorant crew (excluding the obligatory, sensitive mommy's boy) and his whole damned Sherman tank. Of course we're made to withstand an eternity of driveling dialog until the great climactic moment at the crossroads - which is farcical to the point of comical.I really can't understand how anybody can score this film higher than 1. If Pitt's career is on the rocks he should do us a favour and bow out gracefully rather than have us watch as he agonises his way through trash. Over and out.

This is by far one of my favorite films (top 5) ever. I am surprised to admit this film is even better than Office Space (if the true followers can believe that). I have to write this review because this movie is (like office space) under rated and not advertised enough. I find myself laughing out loud just thinking about some of the lines from the film - out of the blue. It is the kind of movie that gets better each time you watch it (twice in a row one day). So much going on in the background. Their is this one scene were Joe freaks out because he sees the date (2505). He takes a look out the window and buildings are tied together, cars are piling up from a bridge that is out. But if you look real close, a cop car drives right past the pile up with a fresh car to boot and does NOTHING. It is the kind of stupid funny that some people might cringe at, but it is far from a mindless shallow movie as I think it points out what we are doing to ourselves as a civilization in a satirical way. I can think of at least 20 one liners that are probably a lot funnier if you see it actually happening. One cute little scene is when he goes to "St. Gods Memorial Hospital" (seeing is important because misspellings and hospital didn't fit so they started writing it crooked on the building like a kid that ran out of room on the line he was writing on and shrunk and twisted it). In the hospital (background) their is this guy playing a slot machine to win free medical care. Then you see this robotic floor cleaner that keeps bumping up against the wall saying "your floor is now clean", and that little strip is clean, but the rest of the floor is trashed. Just the look on the receptionist face as she is obviously bored and annoyed, completely in her own world the whole time Joe is talking to her. You can see she has a key pad in front of her with pictures of the reason for the visit ( baby born, broken bone, bullet wound). Its great, the receptionist could care less about Joe, but the automated system is so polite. Actually she doesn't even talk to Joe just the computer. And their is this guy in the hospital that is clearly there because he is stuck in his own shirt (background again). It actually took longer to talk about it all than just to see it happen. Its not forced like one joke to the next, its more like another world that parallels ours and highlights everything ridiculous. Much like Office space left us all wanting that swingline stapler, this movie will leave you wanting BRONDO "the thirst mutilator...with electrolytes. I could talk about this movie all day long, but it would be best if you just watch it.

Here's what I saw: Actors reading terribly forced lines is a lifeless way (even Kevin Spacey! For shame!). Then there was a whole bunch of smoking, and some shooting, and a bunch of guys (obviously) pretending they're Godfather. I sat there for an hour waiting for the movie to get better, and it just didn't. Then I stopped caring.Sure, there were a few plot twists, but if you don't care about the movie, they just seem like sillyness. In fact, the whole thing comes off amateurish, which is weird given who's involved. In the end, there is probably more excitement in watching a grandmother knit socks than this failed movie.

Well acted and literate drama. Downside: pretty damn boring. Three stories running at the same time are connected via the Virginia Woolf novel "Mrs. Dalloway". Woolf(Nicole Kidman)a British novelist and essayist; a 50s homemaker(Julianne Moore)and a modern-day book editor(Meryl Streep)dissatisfied with life struggle with such things as depression, suicide, AIDS and lesbianism. The fact that Kidman received the best actress Oscar for her role does not make this movie any more than it is...dark, dull and full of despair. A very good supporting cast features: Ed Harris, Jeff Daniels, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Dillane. More of a disappointment than a "must see".

This movie was beyond fantastic, truly a well made film which let's face it, may be hard to come by often these days. Daniel Craig who plays the main role does so in such a thrilling manner as well as Rooney Mara who had me convinced she'd lost her marbles. From a cinematic point of view, it was directed by one of the best thriller directors out there David Fincher who redefined the gory twist completely with the 1995 film Se7en. Fincher made the audience compelled to watch to see what happens next. Although a negative point would be that the film starts slowly and holds that pace for a while, but if you stick with it you will no doubt be more than satisfied ( because it does "speed up"). I can honestly say that this film is a must-see but if blood & gore, violence , substance use and/or graphic sex scenes/nudity tend to bother you, i would undoubtedly advise against this movie. If you feel you can take it, you are in for the ride of a lifetime. I recommend this movie 110% !

"Lost Highway" is a thrilling movie, about an insane killer (Pullman) and his personality problems, shown through different people in the movie.. The movie is a reconstruction of this killers mind.This is truly a masterpiece. It is almost as good as the famous "Blue Velvet". It is not as personal.I've seen the movie 7 times, and it is every bit as good each time. If you are in the mood for a 90's film noir, this is it. It has got it all.

This movie is really enjoyable. I must say that "Everything is awesome" in this movie .

You can find a critic for everything. People actually make a living out of it. Doesn't matter how wrong you are, you get a page or a spot on some overhyped rag to rate someone else's hard work. This is also what we all do in User Reviews section on IMDB. Take it all with a grain of salt, it's a personal opinion afterall.That said, as I've been binge watching Lethal Weapon series (Beverly Cop next), I was pleasantly surprised with Bright. It's basically Lethal Weapon with a human and a orc cop instead of a white cop and a black cop.There wasn't a single scene or dialogue in this movie where I felt it wasn't needed or went on for too long. The comedy is just right, not overdone, and action accompanies the story, done just right. Will Smith and Joel Edgerton actually have a good chemistry and the writer has definitely done a good job creating Orc culture (as inspired by American Black/Latino culture, tbh). It all just works. I wasn't even looking forward to this movie, but I'm looking forward to the sequel now.So do what I do, ignore the critics, and watch the. Make up your own damn mind.10/10 (would've given it 8/10 but others are voting this movie down unfairly, so 10).

This was the worst failure as a director I have seen in years, and more importantly, instead of respecting the material this was based upon, he ruined a greatly loved piece of work.Go ruin your own storyline, instead of taking an amazing one and finding a way to butcher it even when it is so simple and self explanatory. Guess why Avatar and Lord of the Rings took so long to make and cast, because they waited for the right people to audition, they didn't just take the first kids on the street who couldn't act and didn't even look the part.Stop making horrible movies, and stop mispronouncing names. I know you said in an interview that you changed the way they were pronounced to be authentic, but if you really cared about that, you wouldn't have cast the only three white people in the movie at the most important characters. Seriously people, don't waste your money on this movie, my boyfriend and I almost walked out of the theater.I am so sad about this movie, as this was one of my favorite cartoons as a child, and as a writer, this inspired me to start writing fantasy, now I feel like I wasted time and money.

As everybody knows the story, let's cut to the chase: Gibson, in all his blind naiveté, has stripped the "Passion of the Christ" of any context whatsoever, so the movie doesn't really make much sense. Why does the film tell us this story, and this part of the story only? To wallow in a regular sea of blood, which Gibson happily - and, for the most part, in glorious slow motion - does? Or what? I don't have the slightest idea. Maybe he wanted to cater to splatter fans and Jesus freaks alike. Which seems to have worked, judging from the myriads of dumb sheep that literally flocked the theaters."PoC" is little more than a bundle of clichés, and the Jewish part of this world's population needn't worry - they're not the only ones being portrayed in a derogatory manner. Virtually everybody's a caricature here: the Romans are shown as slobbering, bloodthirsty brutes; the fringed and bearded Jews wag their staffs at every opportunity; all of the women are docile, silent and tearful most of the time; and even Jesus himself is so good and benign and endlessly heroic in his quiet suffering it makes you want to throw up. And not because of the pretty (and, courtesy of Caleb Deschanel, very prettily photographed) graphic violence, mind you. Which manages to shock for about two minutes; after that, watching Jim Caviezel in his latex bodysuit (which is clearly visible a couple of times), while he stumbles, falls and is bludgeoned to a pulp, becomes exceedingly and mind-numbingly boring.Unfortunately, the film offers little in the way of redeeming qualities. Except maybe for die-hard fans of schlock, as this must be the most absurd and overblown piece of big-bucks cinetrash ever since "Showgirls" hit the silver screens.In order to make this biblical fairy tale more "authentic", the film was shot in what its makers claim to be Aramaic and Latin - with heavy American, Russian and Italian accents. And if that weren't ridiculous enough, the tongue-twisting dialog gives the - mostly unknown - players such a hard time that most of them speak in a very unnatural, slow and clipped manner. To make sure his, er, "message" comes across, Gibson seems to have told his actors to go all the way, which is why virtually everybody (with the possible exception of Mr. Caviezel) is shamelessly hamming it up, so that a good part of the movie feels like it was made ca. 1917 - if in 1917 they'd had glorious Technicolor and CGI, that is. Unfortunately, the film is far from silent, though. Instead, a full-fledged orchestra plus choir gives a rousing performance of John Debney's permanently blaring and less-than-inspired score which sounds as if it was lifted straight from a cheesy 50s Bible epic. And when God quite literally shed a computer-generated tear in the end, I actually felt inclined to pray to the Good Heavens up above, because this piece of incredibly dull and reactionary religious propaganda was finally over.I don't know what Mr. Gibson had in mind when he set out to write, direct, produce and finance this grotesquely inept specimen of cinematic garbage - the Jesus flick to end all Jesus flicks? Well, what he made is basically a religiously tinged - and even more lame-brained - version of "Hostel". In other words, "torture porn" for the fundamentalist crowd. Now ain't that sumpin' to be proud of?

This is a wonderful movie because it restores one's faith in the goodness of humanity. Anthony Hopkins gives an exceptional performance as he usually does in portraying a character who is humble, courageous, resourceful and forgiving in spite of his wife being adulterous. The events which the two main characters, Hopkins and Baldwin, are subjected to in the wilderness are so well put together that the audience is ensured of being both shocked and enthralled at the same time. If you really do not believe in the goodness of people then this movie will restore your faith in humanity. It is one of Hollywood's finest moments. The last scene between El Mcpherson and Anthony Hopkins is a classic moment. Watch it and be inspired.

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." And the words of Jor-El via Marlon Brando, both spoken from beyond the grave, can not only be referring to the human race, but also director Bryan Singer and his able contingent of writers and fellow producers who delivered a Superman film the likes of which has never been seen – although one could easily ponder that if Dick Donner had access to modern-day technology, this would have been his film as well. From the ground up, Superman Returns flies. It picks up, in case you haven't heard, five or so years after the events chronicled in Superman II. Lex Luthor is out of jail and eager to pickup on a real estate scheme similar to his plan in the original Superman: The Movie but this one is of planetary proportions. As a result, Singer and screenwriters Michael Doughtery and Dan Harris wisely move away from bringing in a comicbook-inspired super-baddie to rough up our hero and instead focus on Luthor's hatred of a "god in blue tights" revolving much of the main fight in a (Super)man vs. nature spectacle. Whereas the main star of the film is probably the extensive but-brilliantly-done CG F/X, most of the actors step up to bat as well. Brandon Routh's Reeve-esquire performance highlights his ability to be both heroic and commanding as well as stammering and sheepish while performing as the titular bespectacled civilian identity. Two-time Oscar winner Kevin Spacey channels Gene Hackman and plays up Luthor's sharp smile conning the audience one second and killing them the next. Even Frank Langella's Perry White seems comfortable. Only Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane, although adequate enough, seems to lack that passionate fire that makes Lane such a compelling character.The film is filled with Breakfast of Champions scenes and action staged to please both the general audience and fanboys as well. For those who care, be sure to take note of the nods to Action Comics #1 (1938), Man Of Steel (1986) and a very clever re-cap of Superman's first two films all told via Luthor's model train room. Unfortunately, not even this film is perfect as the results of the finale are dealt with in a depressing manner that not only spoil the mood but also the tempo of the film. Then there is the sub-plot dealing with the mysterious lineage of Lois' son that perhaps boldly goes into territory that even the much-more brazen monthly comics have yet to go. The pondering of this question really only proves that maybe those comics are best left to such exploration allowing the movies to grow as fantastical companion pieces. Spider-Man's Sam Raimi might be only director to fully grasp this concept. Until, at least, Christopher Nolan creates another Batman film.As certain as believing that a man can fly, Singer crafts a tale full of magic and wonder that almost makes the 20-year wait manageable – as long as Singer's follow-up appears faster, than say, a speeding bullet.

Meet Jo Black is a combination of comedy, romance and drama one of the best movies I have ever seen. This film last for three hours and it is a story of Death personified. In this movie you realize the value of life and appreciate the time you have on this planet since nobody knows how long it will last. The story starts with the scene where a couple Joe Black and Susan Parish meet in a cafeteria and find themselves in love; after this he leaves to go to work and while he is on his way he stops to think and wanting to go back to find out more about her he stops in the middle of the street and a car hits him causing his death. On the other hand Susan's father William Parish, a very important man who lives a very stressful life is experiencing a strong pain in his chest and feels like his time is very close to the end. He even starts hearing a voice, the voice of death. At the same time death is looking for a body to use in order to explore and discover how human life is. This body is Joe's body. Brad Pitt as Joe Black, is the perfect wonder, pure joy of the human elements; Antony Hopkins as William Parish brings his years of experience to this character and reflects the perfect business man whose life is out of control and his health is paying the price of his success, and Claire Forlani as Susan Parish the character who is in the middle and does not know what is really happening, she is just a victim of this game. The dialog of this movie is very interesting and sometimes it gets to be scary especially at the beginning of the movie when the death calls Bill to play his last card and then throughout the movie the way death's voice tells them what to do. This dialog puts the audience in a situation where everyone realizes how difficult would be to have a conversation with the death. I am sure nobody knows how to handle it. Lighting in the movie is fantastic with a lovely golden glow that goes by the hand with the soundtrack of Thomas Newman "What a Wonderful World" adding an extra depth to this movie. Music truly enhances the movie captivating and enhancing it. The mixture of the piano and orchestra builds up to an inspirational and emotional pull. The cinematography of the film was well thought out and extremely picturesque. This is the kind of movie that after you watch it you want to re-watch it more and more times. I absolutely recommend this movie not only for the message it leaves to the audience but also for the outstanding work done combining technology and technique to make the essence of the film come to life. Monica R. ENGL 1302

Before people brutally criticize this The Source Code, they'd better consider that it's a sci-fi movie, not a quantum physics lecture. It may have flaws, the "theory" behind the plot might not be 100% solid, but so what? Still a damn good movie! Its got the flavor of previous successful movies such as 12 Monkeys, Inception, Deja Vu, Surrogates, The Butterfly Effect, Matrix etc. but it's not a boring repeat at all. This movie gives you good acting combined with a good screenplay, there are a few clichés but there are some cool twists as well. Long story mad short, The Source Code is pretty much all you ask for in this kinda movie. All in all, I really, really liked it.

The first time that I saw this movie I really wasn't sure as to what I should expect. It came highly recommended by a friend of mine, Sean. I watched it with a friend of mine and we both loved it. Upon arriving at college I showed the movie to all my friends that had never seen it. All of them have loved it so far. If you are looking for a fine piece of artistic cinema then I am afraid you will be disappointed. However, should you be a fan of the shooting/action genre, I believe the movie will well be worth the investment. I thought that several of the lines and scenarios were humorous, the action was decent, but above all it left you questioning your personal beliefs, something that I haven't experienced from many movies.

I like many could not wait for this movie to come out, be of a big fan of the first two. But this two hour snooze fest was utterly worthless and purposeless. God I wish there something good to be said about this movie, because lord knows it's a damn good story and features a great cast. But this is Hollywood greed and short sightedness at it's absolute worst. They took one book and attempted to split it into two films, essentially taking one or two minor plot points and stretching them out over two unenjoyable grueling hours. If you have NOT seen this film yet do yourself a favor and wait for it to show up on cable for free AND for you to be terribly ill and perhaps half out of it on medication, for you'll need to be to be in order to endure this plot less plodding mess of a film. Simply out there is no movie here. Just a lot of better than fine actors walking around doing nothing. It's that bad. Words cannot do justice to what a snoozer piece of crap this waste of good money is. Let us hope they deliver more in Part two. For it certainly is NOT a lack of a good story that's the problem here.

No chemistry, no laughs, no reason to care!Do you think people set out to make a lousy film? Or do they realize they're making one while in production??An utter waste of time.

It's further out in the future where crime is legal for 12 hours. A young family is safe and sound until a wounded stranger is helped inside. Then some masked and armed madmen breaks in and lurks everywhere. In the meanwhile are a kid having a robot with a build in camera trying to find out where the armed men are in the dark house. The crazy smiling leader is like the Joker from Batman that goes all berserk if he does not get what he wants. This is not any Oscar bait but just some entertainment to let an ordinary day in the summer holiday pass by. This will also be something to watch at a Halloween party as the Blu Ray will be released. The movie is not Jetsons, and instead it's a futuristic Escape from New York like movie where the law won't help. 8/10

White Chicks is not a movie for the masses, it doesn't take anything seriously nor does it take it to a realistic level. What it does is pokes fun of Hilton-esquire mentality, cuz "thats hot".Did I laugh during this movie, yes of course, I thought each scene was ridiculous. Any person with common sense and reason knows that in reality this would never happen.What I did take home with me, is a few cheap laughs and some stupid quotes that I say to my friend from time to time. A person who watches this film should go in that this is not the greatest movie of all time and has to take the movie for what it is. . . a parody of a life style that no one will ever believe.Can this really happen, sure probably, why not, but then again probably not.In a realistic setting and a critic review.. this movie is a 4 out of 10. if one is looking for substance, plot, character development, climax and other things that make a movie a movie In my own mind set, this movie is an 8 out of 10 because of pure mindless fun that makes fun of the whole ditsy Hilton-esquire affair. the only thing missing from this movie was probably the infamous tape.

Batman is not even one of my favorite superheroes even. The only reason I find this movie one of the bests is the art of the director and ledger. Joker is the BEST

High Fidelity is a laugh out loud movie for music cognoscenti.From the movie's snotty clerks (who are quite a bit like the clerks in the stores I frequent who though I give them a good chunk of my weekly pay check still look at me blankly or worse, are absolutely convinced I will not put rejects back in the right order, and sneer at my purchases until maybe twice a year do I earn some momentary approbation with an obscure selection) to John Cusack's "Rob" reordering his CD collection (gee I have mine in alpha order, well mostly, and still my husband complains he can't find anything. Maybe he'd prefer how this character chose to sort his CDs autobiographically, as in he'd find stuff from when we shared the same taste in music) to the loving explanation of what goes into making a compilation tape (has anyone else been as hurt as I when I spend hours doing a mix tape for a friend or relative and they either just don't get it or worse never listen?)--and here the girlfriend even gets what it means. Too bad Iben Hjejle isn't otherwise convincing in her role.Critics have pointed out how unusual that this is a relationship movie from a guy's viewpoint and even more interesting that both characters do change. I of course adored Cusack before this (it was "Say Anything" that convinced me that guys are in fact part of the human species though he didn't co-write that as he did with this though he didn't co-write of that as he did with this adaptation of a Nick Hornby novel I haven't read yet as well as pick the music) and I adore him grown-up even more.(originally written 4/19/2000)

The movie starts with a very uninspiring scene. However, then, the movie does not get better. Showing us the descending to the earth of Superman again was unnecessary. The flashbacks were also unnecessary and scratchy and CGI in these scenes was bad in comparison with the other parts of the movie. Kevin Spacey is may be the best choice for Lex Luthor after Gene Hackman, they look alike, but the problem is the character. Lex Luthor in here is a little bit cartoonish and he does not confront with Superman with a plan exciting or interesting. His lady love is superficial. However, the most important thing is that the whole movie is extremely tasteless and uninspiring except for a few scenes. Brandon Routh makes us believe that he is Superman, but he is very soulless. And of course, nobody can be better than Christopher Reeve. I don't even compare Routh with him. As some people say, yes the plane scene is very good and to me, the best part of the movie. I watched this scene many times. Moreover, the visual effects are flawless too. Unfortunately, many scenes following this scene are very uninspiring, uninteresting. The gatling gun scene is fun, but it is amateurish, showy and pointless. In contrast, I love the single fire. There is one more long action scene after The Krypton starts to occur which is a Superman kind of action, but that's all. The adventure of Louis Lane and her husband and her child is mediocre. By the way, I did not see Louis Lane in this movie as Louis Lane. She is like another woman, she was like a woman Clark Kent just meets in The Daily Planet. The hospital scene was touching. In the theater, the girl sat my back cried. And I want to talk about the costume. According to some people, talking about costumes, gadgets or appearances of the characters is silly. I do. The new costume of Superman is lifeless, colorless. This looks more serious, doesn't it?

Extremely biting and memorable satire of television is downright brilliant stuff from writer Paddy Chayefsky and director Sidney Lumet. It's got an intelligent and quite literate script that the actors clearly relish. And the cast is truly something special, in this story of USB, a failing network that decides to exploit the anguish of its news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch), who's just been fired. Beale has taken to venting whatever ideas are on his mind, and they think that this is the key to solving their ratings woes. In fact, they go on to do a very damn impressive job of perverting serious journalism with their wacky, cutting edge ideas (they even work hand in hand with a group of revolutionaries who will supply the network with footage of their deeds).Nowadays, of course, the thought of a TV network airing just about anything in order to get attention is not far-fetched at all: it's commonplace. Just consider the scores of lame brained reality shows that have proliferated. So this is one of those interesting films that turned out to be more than a little prophetic. It deals with the whole issue of the "television generation", and those people whose lives revolve around the boob tube, whether they work in the industry or not. And now we have an "Internet generation", with youngsters obtaining their information online, so the basic themes of this classic film still resonate strongly.An incredible lineup of actors does well with their meaty roles: William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall, Peter Finch, Wesley Addy, Ned Beatty, William Prince, Lane Smith, Beatrice Straight, Marlene Warfield. Finch, who received a posthumous Oscar, is the one we're all likely to remember the most after watching this, but given that some of them like Straight and Beatty only have one big scene, it just goes to prove that adage that "there are no small parts, only small actors". Dunaway and Straight also won Oscars for their work. Be sure to watch for Lance Henriksen and Michael Tucker in uncredited bits.Lumets' matter of fact style is perfect, and it's clear that he absolutely trusts the material. It's the kind of film in which you may not always notice or appreciate the more technical aspects because the story is so good. Holden and Dunaway shine when their characters embark on a relationship; he's initially attracted to her and interested by her but eventually comes to worry that she's wrapped up so much in her work that she lacks a soul or much of a heart. They just play this subplot beautifully.While the 1970s weren't exactly lacking in terms of great films, "Network" stands tall for this viewer as one of the best of the decade.10 out of 10.

It's pretty easy to make little rodents charming and fun characters (just ask Disney himself, to a clichéd extent), but it's even harder to make them work in such a way that's original and exciting as comedy in conventional ways for today's audiences. But Brad Bird shouldn't be lumped into the group of today's CGI animators. He doesn't really think in those terms, but rather in how to make things look real, and yet at the same time keeping in full mind that it's a cartoon, not reality. This goes not simply for the rats themselves- the funniest, probably even funnier, that Disney's remotely had to market since the Great Mouse Detective- but the human characters too, who have their own distinct shapes and qualities based on personality and relevance to the story (whether they're good or bad, or maybe even more complex too). He places the designs for the characters right up there with the rest of the atmosphere, and then also adds in just the right way to make that wonderfully formulaic Pixar storyline- you know a lot of what may unfold, though not everything, and you know that you're in excellent hands because of the levels of detail and nuance in the comedy chaos at times. It'll be hard to beat this (to put it in a corny phrase) 'gourmet selection' as the best animated film of the year, and certainly the best that Pixar's done since, um, the last Brad Bird movie! The story is the fish out of water, or in this case rat, where a little rodent named Remy, who is totally immersed in the style of Augustus Gusteau, a famous French chef who dies, and who's position is filled by a lowly garbageman named Linguini. He can't cook, of course, but somehow Remy, separated from his rat family, cooks something up on the spot as a not-quite accident, sending Linguini as the one who supposedly made it. On the fluke, he becomes the new chef at Gusteau's...only, the chef's a rat, literally, hilariously pulling Linguini's hair to make him a cooking puppet (early on this makes for some of the best physical comedy of any Pixar movie). This fluke becomes the start of the usual ball of string unraveled bit by bit, involving an heir to Gusteau's fortune, a love interest in aggressive chef Colette, and Remy's reconnection and estrangement from his huge rat clan and his father. All the while Bird throws in such dangerous and downright devilish comedy for a *G* rated animated movie. And there's morales to be learned too, or sort of taken away, I guess, only this time in the true Disney form instead of Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket, it's Remy and the, well, illusion of Gusteau's ghost appearing to him as a quasi-conscious.What makes Ratatouille stand out of the pack from the fellow summer far of the moment, particularly 4th of July fare, is how there's such deft to Bird and his team navigating along the lines of making the comedy work to its excessive lengths while always keeping a firm grip on which turn the story will take next (the moments I didn't quite expect- the whole heir angle involving Linguini, and the climactic scenes with the rats preparing the restaurant's dinners, all washed before going to work, and keeping 'under wraps' the health inspector at the same time!). I probably laughed just as much during this film as I would at something much raunchier like Knocked Up or Grindhouse, to give recent examples, but as mentioned there's a riskiness to Bird's style here.One scene I particularly loved is when Remy is training linguini to command the muscle-controlled hair pulling scheme at his home, and there's a build-up to what seems like a knife going to cut into his fingers while he's chopping vegetables (up to this point he's been hopeless in his training), but at this very point where we should expect the worst, which is funny unto itself, it starts to level out and he's sort of under control. Sort of in that he'll still be naturally clumsy enough to spill the wine on his own head. Same goes for little things like the quite silhouetted bit Remy passes by with the lover about to shoot the other and then falling into full embrace, or the actual fellow employees at Gusteau's, one of who has the wildest thumb ever shown in a movie, least of all a 'family' movie, that I can remember (albeit Bird does come out of working on the Simpsons).So many masterstrokes of comedy go on that it's almost neglected to note how exciting a lot of the film is too, the run-around Remy has in the kitchen first time he comes in or the chase through Paris between the crooked head cook Skinner and Remy, and how seamless voice-work and the (now highly expected) advances in Pixar's technical innovations go together. It was a good guessing game who was the voice of Ego (it's O'Toole, but then it could be any given old regal British person), and to pick out that it's Ian Holm or Garofolo voicing some of the other parts, but it's not something that is immediately meant to be stand-out like in other CGI movies where it's being sold mostly on celebrity voice talent. It's almost like a lot of this comes quite naturally to Bird and his team, and yet because it isn't it reverts to becoming all the more remarkable. Ratatouille is simply an exceptionally fun picture, loaded with sight gags and puns and slips of behavior, and never overbearing with any of the usual messages that come pre-packaged for kids in these movies, all the more remarkable as it comes nearer to Pixar reusing previous ones.

This film is neither as good nor as bad as the extremes of the IMDb reviews suggest. It is thoughtful, uplifting, and exciting, despite being flawed with plot inconsistencies. Denzel Washington has the screen presence to portray the martial-artist hero of the story. His acting is probably the best quality of this movie. His Eli is a simultaneously ruthless but compassionate killer, a man on a mission who will not be swayed from his pilgrimage. It is his singularity of purpose that keeps the movie coherent. He has been walking for 30 years secretly carrying a book to a destination somewhere west. Unfortunately for Eli, he must pass through the anarchic shanty town with its villainous mob boss and obligatory henchmen. The boss is well played by Gary Oldman in the familiar role of amoral sleazy murderer. The town is familiar as a type of wild west or Mad Max Bartertown location. Many of the themes in this story are familiar including the zen-like martial artist monk character of Eli himself. What also saves the movie from formulaic disaster is that it makes you think and feel. There is a twist or two at the end, now rather famous, which are ironic and lend a feeling of sincerity to the movie that is typically lacking in the post- apocalyptic genre. I don't feel that the plot twists work, exactly, and I will discuss that below. I thought the dialog was well written but there were scenes that did not make sense exactly, and I suspect the movie was re-edited more than once.Tom Waits has a nice cameo. Mila Kunis is adequate if maybe a little too good-looking for the role. Jennifer Beals is good. The henchmen were generally pretty well cast.The movie looks pretty good with its bleak if familiar post-nuclear-war type landscape. The casting was good, the acting was excellent, and the script was superior to more ordinary sci-fi thrillers. The movie is worth seeing despite its flaws, primarily for the subtlety of Denzel's acting, but also for the successful treatments of its themes of redemption and morality in the face of extreme adversity and stress.***/4Spoiler alert: This discussion is for those who have seen the movie.So I think the filmmakers were aiming for something like the Sixth Sense but it fell short. The blindness issue is not dealt with successfully (aside from the foreshadowing which was well done). There is no indication that Eli was blind despite his reliance on sounds and smells, using the word "feel" rather than "look", etc. Braille, I suppose, can be read by sighted people as well as the blind, although not many. A second viewing does not hold up as it did for the Sixth Sense.Also what was up with the scene at the spring? I did not even notice this the first time through, but there was somebody struggling, bound and gagged on the ground outside the door to the well. The final edit left me feeling that there were a lot of deleted scenes to see on the DVD.The religious issue also was inconsistent. Granted, they wanted to show the dangers of organized religion (the war, Carnegies motivation) versus the virtues of a personal, moral faith. The shelving of the Bible in the library undermined its significance in that if Eli were blind, it would prove the existence of a God who really cared about the Bible for more than its historical value. There were three other significant plot holes that I observed. How Eli escaped his confinement was not explained. It did not seem that Solara let him out but the guard was just shot on sight without word. The hijackers were operating inexplicably both east and west of town. And what was Solara heading out to the shanty town at the end for? To retrieve the braille book? She can't read, and with Eli gone and her mother having forgotten how, there is probably no one left to read braille. But it looked inspiring for her to don the sunglasses and have her own mission.

I'm beyond tired of seeing great movies ripped to crap because of amateur reviewers who come on here and pretend to know what they are talking about. This movies affects were superb the acting was decent enough and the plot was quite interesting. Is it the greatest movie ever? No. Is it seriously deserving of one star? Screw off. There is a reason why this movie is making 1 billion. Obviously a crap load of people wanted to see it and were thrilled. Go see it or watch it online for free. You won't be disappointed. Especially with the ending. The jokes were funny between characters and the addition of newer character robots gave a refreshing taste to the series.

I saw this today and went in not knowing quite what to expect. I hadn't seen Spirited Away (though now I am motivated to go and rent it), but I had heard people raving and singing praises for Miyazaki's films. Also, I love manga art and to see a movie done in such an elegant style; made my mind up.From the moment the film started, I was enthralled. The music was so incredibly captivating, it swept you along with it and the choice of dialogue was just the right blend of serious, moving, heartwarming, and downright comical. I also have not read the original book this was based "loosely" on, so I basically went with a very open mind. On the whole, I really cannot fault this movie. In my opinion, it has something for *everyone*. Adults of all ages, teenagers, kids....I have no doubt that everyone can find something to enjoy in this movie and I would honestly be extremely surprised if anyone came out saying "Wow...I HATED that!" As I mentioned before, the music is incredible. It flows so beautifully, and the theme tune was been in my head ever since I walked out the cinema. It was also extremely refreshing to see a film that warms your heart, has no sex scenes or real gore (ie: blood spurting) or swearing and yet still manages to hold its audience in this day and age. *laughs* Just goes to show really. Another thing I really admired was the underlying moral and heartfelt issues throughout. The idea that everyone is beautiful no matter what their physical appearance and also the way the film dealt with the issue of war and the devastation it causes, really made me want to stand up and cheer.Christian Bale was awesome as Howl. His voice seemed to alternate throughout from confident Howl, to crushed and depressed Howl so easily and with such sophistication. I know it is an actor's job to portray different tones of voice but wow....Christian was beyond excellent. At several points, I really felt for Howl and at others, I felt like melting under the sound of such a velvet like voice. Personally, this is the best film I have seen for a long long time and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Upon moving into the run-down Spiderwick Estate with their mother, twin brothers Jared and Simon Grace, along with their sister Mallory, find themselves pulled into an alternate world full of faeries and other creatures.I've made up a theory: People who have read books that are turned into movies will be more harsh to judge the films unlike people who see movies without reading the book. I think this theory is right. I was disappointed by Harry Potter 5 at first, but watching it now for a year later and nearly forgetting about the book, I found it the best in the series.The same might as well go with this film. I was disappointed. If you don't know, this film is based on 5 books. However, the movie ignores the 4th book, which is probably because of budget issues and/or limited running time. Still, I can't help but complain. There could've been more creative production designs to see, more action, and more magical creatures.Apart from that, I felt that the film was well put together, especially the fact that they skipped a lot in the books. The special effects are very good, as well as the action scenes. I also may feel this film pushed the PG rating. It certainly is not as intense as Harry Potter 3 but there might be about 2 to 3 scenes that could make this film a PG-13 rating.

UNFAITHFUL brings to mind the old expression, "I only have two speeds; if you don't like the FIRST one, you sure ain't gonna like the second." The first 90 minutes of UNFAITHFUL unfold at the first speed. The last 30+ minutes unfold at the second.How director Adrian Lynne managed to assemble this many fine performances (Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Olivier Martinez, Erik Per Sullivan, Margaret Colin and Kate Burton), and enough nudity and hot sex for the SPICE channel and STILL manage to make a dull movie is beyond me. Certainly the script peters out after 90 minutes, but that doesn't fully explain the overall slack pacing.One piece of advice to the writers: Diane Lane has great tits and legs, but she's also looks a little frazzled. Don't have an older, prettier, more glamourous and YOUNGER LOOKING actress as is Margaret Colin tell Lane how great she looks. UNFAITHFUL is a 6 for the acting (and, maybe the sex) only. If you want a BETTER movie about the horrific consequences of adultery, see the underrated little gem, "Random Hearts".

the movie has a lot of meanings regarding humanity and how to be determinant, also how to appreciate time. The most important thing is that a man should have a principal in life to fight for whatever happened or else, why do we live . thanks to Tom and Zemeckis.

Very poetic movie about the horrors of war and the beauty of life. In the same league as Coppola's "Apocalypse Now". This film makes Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" look like an episode of The A Team.

I love this film, I simply cannot get enough of it.7 people wake in an enclosed cube, with a door on each side leading to another cube. Some of these cubes have traps in them. Can these 7 people survive long enough to find salvation? I love the concept and the team behind this film prove that you do not need a lot of money to make a great film, just passion. (side tidbit of info, the cost to re-dub the audio was more then the entire budget of the film).I love the ambiguity of this film, later to be ruined by the sequel/prequels. You never get any outside contact with anyone. You're stuck in this prison with the characters. With great use of colour, the filmmakers have created a sense of endless rows of hell and torture, when in reality there was really only one or two sets.The tension in this film is great, specifically the scene in which the trap is activated by sound. For films like this, it always gets my thinking about how I would react in this certain situation. I applaud films that make me think this way, it gets me engaged.There was no other way to end this film then the way they did and I was so happy they did it. Reading about the alternate ending and if they had thrown that it, I don't know if I could like this film as much as I do.I recommend this film to anyone looking for a good sci/fi flick. I watched it because it does have it's horror elements. The deaths are more gruesome then your run of the mill horror flicks these days. Just watch the first 5 minutes and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Or in the acting, or the screenplay, or the storyline. Not sure quite what the secret of this movie is, but I love it. It's dark, depressing, hilarious, moving and above all, DAMN entertaining.The only thing that maybe beats this movie, is the book. Read it - it's great. It's one of my favourite books and certainly in the top 5 favourite movies of mine (possibly #2 - only edged out by Princess Bride). Totally underrated.

The big finale of the Hunger Games is finally here. Splitting the last book into two movies makes sense: they have a different tone. The first part of Hunger Games: Mockingjay was about propaganda and set up. It could feel a little short on content because it does feel "cut off in the middle"However, when you view this second part of Mockingjay; it comes together. Here it's about WAR. A very different tonality, quite violent and action packed. It was very strong movie for half / two thirds of the movie: clever integration of the actual Hunger Games in the War between rebels & Snow; some depth in the usage of celebrity & image for political purposes: overall very enjoyable.The movie did lose me at the end. Without spoiling, it fails because too many "twists" at the end (serving in my humble opinion no real purpose) and a little bit sappy final scene.But it was overall satisfactory and overall, a great saga.

Allied is a WWII tale in which we've seen it before but with a different take, it is an ideal drama-thriller-romance story but we can just take the romance away since we can't really find a strong chemistry.The film's nature is very close to what a World War II environment feel should be, but, its more amazing to know that not every design, especially on their clothing, are pulled out exactly as what we knew from history books. As quoted from the film's costume designer, Joanna Johnston during an interview with Fashionista: "I wanted to ground it in the time, but I also wanted to give it its own look, so you kind of pick and mix, in that regard. I think it's a very attractive period, and it looks good to our contemporary eyes at this point in time, so it's not difficult to make it look good for the film. Nothing was a straight copy, it was a whole load of different influences or parts that go into making your interpretation for the film.".Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard both looked lavishly good, with their dresses and suits they both resemble power and class. Cotillard, notably, seemed to fit on every dresses, and no matter what you make her wear, she remains stunningly gorgeous.Pitt and Cotillard had their share of talent throughout the film, even though the romantic charisma between the two didn't spark that bright, they were still able to carry and effectively played their role in a very compelling manner.As the biggest revelation unravels, the couple tried their best to save their relationship by running away, but only then that they realized that their love is not just built on survival, but also by sacrifice.

This movie is not like the book, and it doesn't pretend to be. No this film is meant to give you a whole new adventure and perspective of Langdon's first adventure. Angels & Demons was an awesome book it was earth shattering in the way it told Langdon's powerful rise from a world renowned symbologist to literary hero.The source material for this film is not as popular as the one for the DaVinci Code, and that's is the main reason this film wasn't as well received by fans as the first, but this adventure is all the more better and has much of the things that the first film had to leave out as to tell the story. Like twice the suspense, twice the action and twice the fun. All In Angles & Demons delivers what the should have, a fun and action packed adventure.Tom Hanks gives another amazing performance as the hard working and extremely intelligent symbologist that never seems to get a real day off, this film shows us an older and more reverent Robert Langdon, it shows us that Langdon has gone trough much change since his first adventure in Paris and London. We get to see Langdon become a full fledged hero instead of just some teacher trying to clear his name of murder. Now we have Langdon do what he does best, solving a 500 year old riddle and stopping an ancient secret society from destroying the Vatican.This film is not fast paced as the trailer makes it to appear, it's a very mild paced film with some very fast and sweeping moments that you have to come back a second time just to see those parts again. But if you give this film a chance I know it will please you, I know there's no changing the minds some of the die hard fans but for those that have read the novel and are willing to give the film adaption a shot I can promise you, form being a fan of the novel myself that this film will not disappoint, it'll give you what you came for and a little more.Angels & Demons is near- perfect and will have to go down as one of the best films of 2009 and is perfect summer entrainment for all people. And it delivers.

The horror in this movie is secondary to the sheer brilliance of the cinematography and direction. I rarely like horror, as it seems to be the haven for low-budget films, most of the violence is gratuitous, as the nudity and screams. Most horror is like popcorn, and as forgettable as is most movie snacks. Not so with this one, every shot communicated more than most of the dialog in any movie, visually stunning and unforgettable. The premise was creative the actors fell right into their roles and were captured beautifully. I've never recommended a horror movie in my life, but have passed on several recommendations to friends because they need to see what *can* be done, as opposed to what is usually done. The ending makes me think that there is an opening for a sequel, which I pray is able to compare to what It Follows.

Sherlock / Not Rated but could be PG-13 for crime, a little violence and adult themes. My mom read to me a lot and sealed my fate as a BIG reader. One of my early favorites from about 8 years old on was Sherlock Holmes. I helped ruin my eyesight by continuing to read after "lights out" under the covers via flashlight. Don't recommend it. This was due to my insatiable interest in the Arthur Conan Doyle character, Sherlock Holmes, and his companion Dr. Watson. Jules Verne is also partially to blame for "Mysterious Island" and my inability to stop reading when I was supposed to. I have forgiven him. Sherlock Holmes, in movies and TV, is one of the most filmed of all characters in fiction. And well he ought to be. A recent restoration of a silent era, first appearance of Sherlock in film was a wonderful addition to the Sherlock Holmes film collection. John Barrymore was the first SH and Roland Young was his sidekick. William Powell was in the 1922 version, who also played a brilliant detective in his own right as Nick Charles in The Thin Man in 1934 and all its sequels. Powell also played the lesser known Philo Vance crime solver during this era. Basil Rathbone created the best known and probably the most popular SH over many decades up to now. 2010 gives us a new look at the old character. There is no charge to see the new incarnation. PBS Mystery! Series has premiered its first 3 episodes of "Sherlock". The story has been updated to the 21st Century. British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch is the new SH with Martin Freeman as the new Dr. W. The first episode is a refresher of the SH legend with a new story title, "A Study in Pink" which is an updating of the original AC Doyle story, "A Study in Scarlet". ACD is co-credited as a writer but the update belongs to Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. MG also appears in a very important (un-credited) role in the series. Their writing and update is BRILLIANT. Combining the old elements that have made the series enduring and beloved, it adds all kinds of 21st century twists and turns. The story in the opener is a good old fashioned murder mystery with an evil serial killer doing bad. A bigger evil looms behind him. It's the manner they have chosen to tell the story which is original and BRILLIANT. The actors are dead on. No pun intended. There is just enough humor to take off the hard crime edge. Without giving away too much, I can tell you that it's all "Elementary". Find this show on your local PBS station and don't miss it. And, yes, for aficionados, Dr. Watson was recently in Afghanistan. It's rare to experience anything this good but when it's on free TV it's BRILLIANT. Rated 4.0 out of 4.0 reasons this review may not be BRILLIANT but it sure is one of personal thanks to the BBC folks and PBS. NOTE: another Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes 2009) film is also in the works. Since it's not due out till December 2011 this new TV version will hold over the die hard fans like me. And, maybe you. BRILLIANT.

Well just rented the movie and hugely impressed. The cinematography and sound editing was excellent and Mel Gibson did a brilliant directing job. The action sequences stunning, graphic and brilliantly showed the horrors of war.I am a war film connoisseur and this was one of the best i have seen for many years.

I can't understand why this movie flopped, it's one of my favorites.The story is about a quite weird cable guy (played by Carrey) who more and more sneaks into the life of an average guy, who lost his luck (played by Broderick)and makes his life even more uncomfortable.This movie features a good cast, Carrey is funny and frightening at the same time, while Broderick is the perfect choice to play an average guy and Jack Black ( as Brodericks characters best friend) is just as funny as he usual is. Also the way Ben Stiller put himself into this movie is great. Also the references to other movies make this film an enjoyable dark comedy for people with a rather black humor.

Fashion Designer and Film Director Tom Ford premiered his new film, Nocturnal Animals, at the Sala Grande Theater during the 73rd Venice International Film Festival. Nocturnal Animals received this year's Silver Lion – Grand Jury Prize (generally considered runner-up to the Golden Lion – Best Film). This was Ford's second feature film. His first film was the critically acclaimed, A Single Man (2009) starring Colin Firth. Firth receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role for his efforts.Nocturnal Animals is a tale of redemption, revenge, love and cruelty. Ford opens the film with a strong musical score to reveal rotund, morbidly obese girls dancing topless upon pedestals seemingly pretending to be debutantes. Adding to the fanfare special effect confetti drops down and through the frame. All-American girls showcasing their goods and talents. Bordering on the macabre, the tone for the film has been set.Hollywood A-lister Amy Adams plays a real-life West Texas debutante, Susan Morrow, who lives an unfulfilling life of daunting privilege with her handsome husband, Hutton Morrow, played by Armie Hammer. As Hutton prepares for yet another last-minute weekend high-finance business meeting in New York relationship fissures widen. A pensive Susan reflects on the state of her union with Hutton after a 'not-so-discreet' phone conversation from Hutton's elevator as he is arriving at a penthouse suite amid feminine gaiety as she opens a plain, white, mail shipping box. Susan opens the box to a black and white manuscript titled, "Nocturnal Animals," by Edward Sheffield, Susan's former husband and first true love.In dramatic fashion, Ford begins a journey into the past yet grounded in the present as the manuscript opens up a world fictional, yet etched within Susan's consciousness. Using parallel story lines, present and fictional coupled with flashbacks to when Edward and Susan first met and the ensuing courtship and short-lived marriage. Laura Linney, plays Susan's West Texas Republican mother, and delivers some of the film's more memorable lines during a martini lunch where she unleashes lambasting Susan for even considering a marriage to "weak' Edward. Notwithstanding, however, the real storytelling takes place within the pages of the manuscript. Self-reflective and dramatic the narrative is full of conflict and escalating tensions as a husband and wife, Tony and Laura Hastings, played respectively by Jake Gyllenhaal and Isla Fisher, travel at night across rural West Texas with their teenage daughter, India, played by Ellie Bamber. Without even as much as a lit billboard, out of a pitch dark blackness a vehicle approaches the family's suburban mid-sized car at a high-rate of speed. The car is driven erratically and its occupants are behaving wildly as they pass. Not too much to worry about until they decide to force the Hastings car off the road. Mayhem ensues as the hellions carjack the Hastings vehicle with the women inside leaving Tony on the side of the road in the dark by his lonesome. Soon a vehicle returns to pick up Tony. He's informed he gang leader wants to make amends and that Laura and India want Tony brought to where they are being held hostage. Fearing the worst Tony manages to escape and eventually makes his way to a law enforcement office to make an abduction/missing persons report to lawman Bobby Andes, played by Michael Shannon. Susan is shocked and awed at the power of Edward's writing and the visceral strength of Edward's character, Tony. By the end of the manuscript, Susan's life perspective has shifted as she and Edward make plans to meet.Unquestionably, Ford delivers an emotional and psychological thriller with Nocturnal Animals. Superb acting, exquisite production values and strong storytelling are the film's hallmarks. Shane Valentino (Straight Outta Compton) handled the film's production design. Seamus McGarvey (Godzilla, Atonement, The Avengers) provided the cinematography. Costuming was assembled by Arianne Phillips (Kingsman: The Secret Service, Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma). Abel Korzeniowski (A Single Man, We) orchestrated the music. Along with directing Ford takes a screenplay writing credit along with Austin Wright, the author of "Tony and Susan," for writing the novel the film is based on. Nevertheless, the Casting Director, Francine Maisler (The Revenant, Birdman, The Big Short, 12 Years a Slave) and performances by the actors are above and beyond. This is a Don't Miss film waiting for Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences nominations - The Oscars.

Another February weekend, another time for a horror movie to hit the silver screen. Tonight, my review is on Get Out, a simplistically titled tale that is from the mind of Key & Peele's Jordan Peele! How well does a film directed/written by a comedian fare, as always, it's my job to share some thoughts, insights, and opinions on the latest film. So, stay in, grab a drink and read my thoughts on this "epic" film. LIKES: • Good Central Character • Comedic Relief • Well-Paced • Decent StorySummary: It's always good to have a character you can grip onto if you are going to watch them face the nightmares of this film. Chris is one of those protagonists that fulfills that role containing all the elements you want in a character: backstory, level headed decisions, not annoying, etc. Daniel Kaluuya is certainly one of the better horror genre actors, and portrays his role in a manner that doesn't want to make you roll your eyes, outside some emotional flatness the team made him portray. Yet the other actor to steal the show (not based on looks) was LilRel Howery as Rod the TSA. Rod's scenes are purely comedic, serving to relieve the tension the movie builds up and keeping it decently integrated into the story. These scenes, in addition to lightening the mood, keep the pace of the movie flowing to avoid that prolonged dragging feeling that many horror films seem to have. Such a pace kept the film interesting to me by keeping the suspense at a maximum. Perhaps the biggest strength to me, is that Get Out has a decent story laced with some originality. While not the scariest tale to hit the screen, this film has some hot topics built into the story (primarily racism and its wrongdoings) that go alongside the character building moments of the story. In addition, there is a nice twist to the tale, which may please many fans of this genre. DISLIKES • High Political Points • Unnecessary Scenes • Not scary • The ending being a little too easySummary: While Peele's writing is certainly impressive, tasteful, and clever at times, it also falls victim to being overly political for me at times. Get Out has many scenes were the extras throw the multiple judgmental stares, the rude, overstep their boundaries with too personal (and insulting) questions, or out of the way monologues about skin color that were more eye-rolling than necessary. It's not that I don't believe this issue exists, I just grow tired of directors deviating from the cleverness and pace of the story to make a point in these movies. Another unnecessary deviation was some of the comedic relief moments. Don't get me wrong, Rod's comedic relief was very welcome and had some of the best dialogue presentation of the film. However, there were moments where his scenes felt out of place, randomly thrown in there where they felt more like an SNL intermission than being pertinent to the story. Guess a comedian can't fully drop his roots. His comedic background may also be the reason this movie wasn't too scary either. Again, Peele has done the genre justice in terms of making a thriller with a decent plot that has some substance to it. But this movie failed to scare me at any point of the film, outside of maybe a few creepy stares from the brother or other staff. I think Peele tried to make it creepier from the realism aspect, but outside of that the jump scares were poor, the extras presentation was more annoying than scary, and the theme of the movie takes a different twist. Finally, when the movie reaches its exciting climax, Peele's writing definitely leaves you feeling fulfilled on many levels. However, much of that ending seems to be a little too conventional that takes away from what he built. Things happen in random succession and there are a few moments where logic (and realism) are dropped like so many hot potatoes it again becomes more humorous than fun. The Verdict:Despite my doubts, Get Out is a movie that stands out (in a good way) from many of the horror movies unleashed in the last few years. I always find value in a film has a good central character that has development and a well-paced, intriguing story to support it. In addition, while the comedy does have its out of place moments, the comedy is also a welcome diversion to make you laugh, fortunately in a manner that isn't overly stupid. However, if you are looking for a movie that will haunt your dreams and make you jump, this isn't the movie for you. Whether it is the lack of scare tactics or the overly political moments, Get Out's horror aspect is highly diluted in this film, feeling more like a mystery than anything else. Worth a trip to the theater? I'm on the fence about this one, but I have to say wait on this one until it hits home in a few months. My Scores: Horror/Mystery: 7.0 (mystery element) Movie Overall: 6.0

I don't normally suggest any movies to Christians because of the varied beliefs among them regarding whether or not it is a condescension to worldly things. You will have to decide this for yourself. I have never seen anything from Hollywood that comes close to glorifying God--I've seen my share (10 Commandments with Charlton Heston, "The Resurrection," George Steven's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" , the animated "Prince of Egypt," Mel Gibson's "The Passion" and a recent one, "The Nativity Story.") The latest one I saw was "The Nativity Story" from New Line Cinema based on Jeremiah 23:5-6 (see http://www.thenativitystory.com/.) which chronicles the two-year period of Mary and Joseph's life and culminates in their leaving Nazareth and journeying 100 miles to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus.It was actually very close to the Bible account. Of course, to turn a few chapters of the Bible into a full-length film, takes playwriting techniques. I must say, though, that these scenes do not detract from the message. They actually conjured up questions that we have no answers for, like how did Mary's parents react when the found out Mary was pregnant? I think it was very historical and Biblically accurate.I rented my DVD from the Redbox (vending machine at McDonald's) but I'm sure you can get it anywhere. Perhaps you are looking for a DVD to rent that is wholesome--this would be it. You do have to be careful with little kids though--the scenes of Jewish animal sacrifice can be pretty graphic! Also, the some of the treatment of the Hebrews by the Romans can be considered graphic.

The un-stylized, mind-numbing violence makes it a difficult experience, but "Romper Stomper" somehow manages to walk on that thin line between "edgy" and "self-serving". It makes fine observations while not crossing the line, and that's what makes the difference between art and mere exploitation. Enjoyable like a smack over the head, the film basically gives you the horrifying spectacle of humans trying to connect. To fill a void. Through violence.The major asset of "Romper Stomper" is a young Russell Crowe who already dominates the space with tremendous star power. If he's not perfectly "credible" in this role it's only because, despite his tattoos and menacing physique, he simply looks too intelligent, too complex for a Skin-head. A real Skin-Head, as I imagine it, would be nothing more than a brain-dead, inarticulate brute, with no intellect whatsoever. Russell's clear voice and eyes can't help but blowing his "cover".But this is no dumb reality-show, and the choosing of Crowe is a wise one. We are watching here more than mindless violence - there is something going on in these characters' minds after all. And it is interesting to get a glimpse. He's the leader, so he has some degree of intelligence; the rest are cattle. Nobody but Russell Crowe could represent an idea so convincingly: the fascination of violence.By the end of the movie, I was left with the impression that these people were just a bunch of confused kids who hadn't been fortunate enough to have better role-models. Violent as they were, they seemed to be craving, deep down, for something else – for a family, for love and friendship. The way it plays out certainly leaves room for more open questions on "nature vs nurture". However, the film doesn't make excuses for the gang's behavior. On the contrary, it presents them as a dying species, their ideology rendered obsolete by natural evolution. The movie only tries to identify the causes of this aberration. As I see it, the ending comes as both an affirmation of faith and a much needed moral position. It's good, seeing a filmmaker take responsibility for a change. The director could have easily turned Hando into a tragic hero, wronged by society and only taking what's rightfully his. Fortunately, that doesn't happen. Great acting and direction, well developed and intriguing characters, compelling social commentary and above all, Russell Crowe's take on a difficult role, make "Romper Stomper" an interesting exploration of the mind.

First off, let me start by saying that a 10/10 is not enough. Never have I cried so hard at the end of a film. I even cam home no more than half an hour ago and cried on my bed. This movie really gets to you, and I know that this may sound a bit cliché, but it has everything an excellent film could want. Comedy, drama, romance, mystery. I know some people out there may not agree with me, (like that butt - hole roger ebert who only gave it 2 and a half stars!) however I am finding it difficult to put into words how great this film is, as emotion has swarmed over me. The Curious Case Of Benjamin button is now easily in my top 5 greatest movies of all time. To not see this movie would be a grave mistake. I am so yearning to read the original book. I know this review/comment may sound like someone rambling on but this movie, without a doubt, is perfect. That's the only word I can use to describe The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button...... P-e-r-f-e-c-t. I don't just highly recommend this movie, I hearteningly implore you... nay, beg you to at least watch this film once, as it will leave you swept off your feet with vast amounts of emotion. And that's all i have to say about that.Adios ! Y'all

What I found most surprising was how perfect the pairing of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum was. It was almost as unusual as the casting in The Other Guys, but this one worked a hell of a lot better. Plus, 21 Jump Street was livelier and funnier throughout, and on those merits alone deserves the 8/10 rating I have given it.I was also really impressed with Channing Tatum and how well he handled a comedic role, considering his previous work includes Step Up, Dear John and The Vow. He was more prominent in the lead, and stood out more so than Jonah Hill, mainly because he was playing outside of the arena he is accustomed to and our expectations of him were lower, while Hill is primed and natural in this genre.What comes as no surprise is that Hill would have something to do with a film implementing the whole high-school backdrop, allowing him to revisit past scenarios and recreate some of the fun from Superbad. It was Seth, trimmed down and perm-less, and as awkward and insecure as ever with women, still engaging in endless partying and heavy drinking all in an effort to fit in with the cool crowd. It seems a trend is developing for Hill, and it could threaten to type-cast him. He was pretty damn funny in the movie though, and rightfully earns that kind of praise.The movie was as humorous as it was morally driven, exhibiting themes of partnership, trust and loyalty, and how defiance and betrayal can break, or threaten to break, a friendship (similar in nature to 2004′s remake of Starsky and Hutch).21 Jump Street proves that even comedies can have underlying messages and useful lessons for kids ...violence, coarse language and intensively vulgar, inappropriately graphic, sexually explicit themes and dialogue aside.Oh, and Johnny Depp's cameo is awesome. The way his character's reappearance was written into the story is nothing short of genius.

This installment very much makes the CIA look like a very foolish organization. In reality, perhaps they are. After all, the way the plot goes on this it very much looks like one man has the power to sanction killing everyone including his own people in order to kill Jason Bourne.Matt Damon does a very credible job as Bourne trying to stay one step ahead of being killed the entire film. He is still trying to remember who he was & how he has gotten where he is. He gets help from a couple of folks & it seems like every minute of the film, somebody is trying to kill him.There is little time for rest in this film & the action sequences seem very very real. There are a lot of chase sequences filmed with the shaky cam which in a way add to the realism & make it seem less Hollywood than many pictures. These sequences add realism to the film in feeling.The suspense in some of the sequences is brilliantly done as you wonder if someone is going to die or if Bourne can head them off. This is the kind of action suspense you go to see when you want to be entertained & I am sure this one will lead to the next film in the series.

Goodness me, but this film is dreadful. What Mr Coppola was thinking attaching his name to not one, but two of these films, is beyond me. I am someone who is fairly sensitive to scary films; so when my girlfriend suggested hiring this, and on the cover (UK) it has "will give you nightmares for weeks" I was really apprehensive and ready to be scared. And the beginning of the film is good, hence the 3 stars I've given it - but oh my, once the two main stars (who frankly look so stupid as to be worthy of slaying - remove them from the gene pool, please) reach the diner, the scariest parts of the film are over. As another reviewer has written, horror works best when you can imagine the incidents occurring in real life. In this film, any semblance of credibility is long, long gone before the final third starts; and it ends - thankfully quickly - in a flurry of illogical and badly-acted scenes. Only scary if you are in your early teens and still half-afraid of the bogeyman under your bed.

I was pleased to note that a sequel to this fine film is in the works, as it should be. Disney deserves to be amply rewarded for this film, and every collector's set of disks should include it. A nostalgic return to Disney's golden age with a refreshingly new twist, it leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the world. Unabashed sentimentality abounds in this fish out of water romantic comedy that combines the best of 21st century animation and Walt's original magical touch with the kids and adults alike. I love this film and Amy Adams was a perfect fit-wholesome with a capital W. I reminds me of two unforgettable words from my childhood: always believe.

This is without doubt the worst movie I've watched in all of 2013. From the meaningless slaughter of people to the lamest soundtrack ever made by Hans Zimmer this was a prolonged pain to watch."Something is very wrong with that horse" is a remark made by Tonto (Johnny Depp) and stands out as the most precise there is to say about the whole movie.Guns and ammunition with properties of state of the art military equipment post 2000, the use of Latin names for muscles, references to brain functions and pharmaceuticals unknown to the time period, and people deliberately aiming above the person they are supposed to be shooting at are all examples of the folly that completely ruins the story.I'll just stop here and try and find a way to get rid of my disappointment.

I really enjoyed this film. Some people might get at this film for its lack of being like the book, but look at Bourne Identity and its films and books, they don't match, but still good adaption and story. The same goes for I, Robot. Other critics might complain of the graphics, but I grew up video games and graphics never really mattered to me. Just as long as the story held you in there. Take Half-Life. I play that all the time even though it's over 6 yrs old. For the story, it really shows how dependent we are on technology and how technology could take over us. This story (though written before Matrix) holds the same moral. Would have been nice if I, Robot had somekind of scary ending that would have been to some degree the beginning of the rise of machines mentioned in the Matrix trilogy. Well my only complaints of the film are really storyline issues. First off the whole setting in Chicago in 2035 seemed to early for some technology, but the robots could have been there. Look at video game AI. In less that 10 yrs, it has evolved a lot. The other problem dealt with the robots replacing humans in the workforce. If we all complain of Mexico, China, and India taking away our jobs, then humans will sure as hell not allow some robot take them. But in all I rate this film as A or 8 on the scale. Some things could be changed, but hey it's a film.

I'm a huge fan of spy movies! I loved The Day of the Jackal, The Bourne Identity. However, this film fails on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. First, we learn almost nothing about the characters. Secondly, I really got tired of watching filing, shuffling of papers, and scenes of men sitting in chairs over and over without any real action. The cuts back and forth are confusing, the actors look extremely unattractive, and most of the scenes are of men sitting down and talking. Or not talking. They stare, they stare again, they mutter. I found this film to be toxic it was so dull. And if the scenes are from the 1970s, how about sideburns on the men? Or double vented suits? This film was a terrible disappointment.

I loved the book and the first movie, and I was looking forward to this new movie with great anticipation. (Especially when I heard Johnny Depp was to be Willy Wonka.) However, after seeing it, I cannot imagine any way to make it worse. Willy Wonka, instead of being depicted as the eccentric genius he is supposed to be, is portrayed as a sissy pervert. He looks, talks, and acts like a cross between Michael Jackson and Pewee Herman. Grandpa Joe was also terrible. The oompa loompa songs should have been scrapped altogether, as they were the worst part of the original movie. But instead, they were transformed into some kind of Marylin Manson type freak-show. I hated it and could not wait for it to be over.

To be honest – when I first heard of 'The Lego Movie' I thought it to be a ridiculous idea and automatically dismissed it as something bad. However, when I gave it a second thought, I realized I kind of liked the idea. I mean, why not create a big budget movie that takes place inside the Lego universe? At least it's somewhat original (there have been previous Lego movies, but they were all direct-to-video, and from what I realize – they are much different from this one). And in this age of spin-offs, remakes, prequels, etc. originality is more valuable than ever. Add to that the amazing cast in the movie, and I, for one, needed no more reasons to see this movie – and I ultimately enjoyed it. The movie opens with the movie's villain, Lord Business (voiced by Will Ferrell), stealing a mysterious artifact called the 'Kragle' (I hope I've written it correctly) from a wizard named Vitruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman), in order to destroy the Universe. During their encounter, Vitruvius tells of a prophecy about a Chosen one, who will find another mystical artifact, called 'The Resistance Piece' and will put an end to Business's mettle. 8 and a half years later, Lord Business's alter ego – President Business – is ruling the whole world in a sort of totalitarian way. We then meet the movie's protagonist, Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt), who one day accidentally stumbles upon 'The Resistance Piece' and is thought to be the Chosen one by a group of Lego characters called the MasterBuilders. Despite the fact that The Lego Movie's plot summary may seem a bit complicated (and despite the fact that I hailed the movie's originality a moment ago), the movie is actually pretty predictable and formulaic. That isn't necessarily a bad thing – actually, the movie has an explanation of some sort for why it is so predictable – but the movie does get slightly tedious from time to time. The only other possible downsides to the movie besides that, are the movie's third act, which gets clingy in some parts, and some of the action scenes. I like how the animation is a combination of both stop motion and CGI, but this unusual style of animation may be hard to follow during a few action scenes – and I fear this scenes might be even harder to follow if you decide to watch the movie in 3D. Nonetheless, all this downsides to the movie are easily overshadowed by its qualities. The movie's biggest quality is definitely that it is fun. The Lego Movie is a nostalgic look back at childhood and it helps to realize that our child games were often very silly, ridiculous, over the top and funny – and in that way The Lego Movie could be better appreciated by adults than by children. Virtually almost every scene contains a silly joke or gag and I was constantly giggling throughout the whole movie. The Lego Movie easily succeeds in being a feel good, ridiculously entertaining movie that is worth your time. Moreover, another The Lego Movie's quality is that it has quite an impressive cast (Pratt, Ferrell, Banks, Day, Brie, Freeman, Hill, Neeson, Offerman, O'Neil, etc.), that portrays a bunch of very colorful and memorable characters. In short, if you are interested in watching a nostalgic throwback to your childhood or just want to watch a fun, feel-good movie, you mustn't skip The Lego Movie. Rating: 8/10

I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried (from laughing). I nearly lost a lung (from coughing, from laughing too hard). I think I got a contact high from the theater. Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and Judd Apatow really know how to put together a film that meets your expectations without being completely formulaic, and the writing was superb. I spent a good hour just laughing and talking about the best parts of the movie with a friend, and how there was hardly a dull spot in the film. But it was James Franco, taking a complete 180 on his serious, brooding anti-hero kind of character and becoming the incredibly lovable drug dealer that just MADE it.I grew up with several stoner kids, and James Franco just made me think of the sweetest, funniest, cuddliest one I knew. His apartment, his clothes, his behavior, it was all so authentic stoner, without making him the outrageously over the top stereotype that would be Spicoli or Cheech and Chong in another era. We all knew Seth Rogen was a funny guy going in, and, while I had faith in James Franco's ability to change it up and tackle a new sort of character from the trailers, I was honestly surprised at how well he was able to steal the show and comedically outshine Rogen.My only regret is that I wasn't stoned when I went to see it.

The 2002 Oscar nominated film The Hours directed by Stephen Daldry the same guy that did Billy Elliot revolves on a how one novel affects three separate women during three separate time periods. OK if you see this film you feel like you have to like it because if you don't your stupid or don't get it. I sat through about 1 1/2 hours thinking this was overrated until the final thirty minutes in which it came together for me. This film is subtle and needs close attention. The person that stood out for me was Julianne Moore as the troubled 50's housewife. She outshone Nicole Kidman's Oscar winning performance that personally I thought was more supporting. Meryl Streep, Miranda Richardson, Ed Harris all turn in good performances as well. One positive note was the the DVD was one of the better ones I had seen with interactive menus and extras.Grade: B

We don't really get enough adventures in movie form, I mean the Clash of the Titans I remember when young (the remake -er - nah). I love a good adventure movie and fantasy to boot. Here we had a slightly promising cast promising lush CGI and action. It was a fine enough mindless diversion with most attempts at humour falling flat, a few hitting. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau channeling his Game of Thrones Jamie character to a minor extent is hard not to approve of. Butler gives a normal day at the office enthusiasm with his Character, he's alright. Rufus Sewell, underused is a silly role. Chadwick (the new Black Panther) given little time for a curious character. Anyway the whole movie was curious and the extensive CGI used simply detracted from the movie. Some of it looked simply bad and not 2016 and equivalent to its budget. Came across as a mediocre 3 year old video game you could only watch. Had me actually pining for Immortals which is I think the movie of this style I've enjoyed most in the past few years.

Batman is still by far Tim Burton's greatest picture but this film is by far his most creative. In what many have called "the re-telling of Frankenstein" Burton creates a world like no other. There is a scene where Kim (Winona Ryder) is dancing to the "snow" to Danny Elfman's beautiful score and that has to be one of the most beautiful scenes ever captured on film. The film stars Johnny Depp in what is perhaps his greatest performance and he portrays Edward in such a superb way that it is impossible to imagine someone else playing that character. Now with Burton, Depp, and Danny Elfman, in what once again should have been an Oscar-Winning score, mix the right elements to achieve the status of this wonderful picture.

I was horribly disappointed by season 10 of the X-Files. I had been told that it was an awesome show, so I checked it out. The first two episodes were interesting, but not impressive. It really went downhill with the Were-Monster episode. I generally dislike "comedy" episodes of any TV series that isn't a comedy, because they are almost never funny. If you want a comedy episode, hire some comedy writers. It was very cringe worthy to be honest. Also, I really didn't enjoy Home Again. The band aid nose man was just a horrible villain, he could have been creepy but the way he killed people removed the tension from the entire episode. Babylon was a little better, and the finale was just messy. Overall, the plots were just dumb. How is this #78 on the Top 250 TV Shows? Doctor Who was rated best sci fi TV series of 2015 by Rotten Tomatoes (rightfully so), and it's #87. I think Doctor Who is a far superior show that receives almost no recognition for what it puts out. Watch Face the Raven or Heaven Sent from series 9 to see a little of what it can do. X files was just bad 4/10.

I lost track of the number of times I've watched "The Master." It's been six or seven and I'd still be going back if it was still in theaters. I found the film mesmerizing. It is for me, perfect in so many ways. I'm thankful Paul Thomas Anderson is making films. I've put off writing my thoughts down about this film partially because I've not had time because I spent too much time going to see it, but mainly because the film has such breadth of meaning to me that I find it hard to put my thoughts down coherently. I've read many, many reviews including excellent ones by Kenneth Turan (LATimes), A.O. Scott (NYTimes), and Ella Taylor (NPR). I like these reviews because I agree with them.On the cinematic level PTA has made another accomplished work of art. It shines on all levels for me. The acting across the board is tremendous and especially the three featured actors, Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams. The cinematography and art design are beautiful to behold and the score by Jonny Greenwood works perfectly. Thematically I think this film is expansively broad in scope. I see it as a sociological rendering of the past sixty plus years of the United States of America.The USA has been at war in all of that time and has paid a great price for that in many ways. The Master looks at the few years after the end of WWII and the price the "greatest generation" paid. The concept of a "greatest generation" is laid bare here. Freddie Quell and all of the men, women and children who survived that war and the wars that have continued unendingly have suffered this nation's inability to find an alternative.NPR's Ella Taylor put it much better than I am able. "Without ever saying so, the movie adds up to nothing less than a social psychology of the nervous, spiritually questing geist of post-World War II America. After hard times were declared officially over and peace and prosperity were proclaimed, the legacy of the past opened a space for all manner of restless malignancies to take root." This is not specifically a film about Scientology or cults, or alcoholics, or Freddie, or Lancaster, or Peggy or Elizabeth, or Val , or Doris, but it is a story about all of them and all of us right up until today. We wouldn't need a Lancaster Dodd to show us as individuals how we can save ourselves, if we lived in a society that didn't need to be at war with itself and the universe. If you've read this far you're the bravest reader I've ever met.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was an extraordinary man who left his mark in history. This movie is a masterpiece and it is only fitting that this extraordinary life is brilliantly told through a truly great picture. The direction by Milos Forman is superb, and the story could not have been told better with a great script and acting performances all round. F. Murray Abraham deserved his best actor Oscar for his role as the jealous court composer with disgust and hatred for his god who he blamed for all his imperfections. This movie is also brilliant because of the music played throughout the picture. The music is Mozart and is not altered or modernized for todays audience. It is truly a work of art and I've seen it over 10 times and will never get sick of it... Brilliant, just brilliant.... 10/10

Bronson is a very interesting movie. It presents you with a character that seems to have a violence inherit in him, and a total disregard for authority, and does so in a way that make you understand him, despite the huge gap there is between his world and your own. You can see how the system he is a part of does not have a way of dealing with him. And you can also see how his motivations are not evil, no matter how much harm he has caused.I have little knowledge about the actual person this movie is based on, and my opinion on the character in the movie is not meant to be taken as a comment on him. I have no idea if the real life "Bronson" deserved the sympathy granted in him in this movie, but it does make for a very interesting picture.In addition to crafting this character, Refn also comments upon us an audience, as the character is multiple times addressing us directly (even with us represented on screen), and it adds a layer of exposing not only how Bronson appears, but how he chooses to represent himself.This reflected use of both violence and character makes the movie more than worth watching. When you on top of that get some great performances and a good soundtrack, you end up with a very good movie.

The original movie is entertaining, fun, and loving. I found this remake to be weird and creepy. I didn't like Wonka or the Oompa Loompa's. The scenes in the movie were crazy. They could have done a much better job at directing this movie.The only thing I liked about the movie was Wonka inviting Charlie and his family to live with him, and Charlie going with Wonka to see his father.3/10

Was it bad? No. Was it good? No.While many of the individual elements were fine it just did not hang all together.Trying to squeeze DNA's words into such a short timespan is part of the problem, but I also think the editing could have been better.Even having heard the radio, read the book and seen the TV program, I found that it jumped around and was unclear at times.The film just seems to end....I guess I will be interested in seeing the various bits that were cut when the DVD comes out.Stay around for the extra bit in the credits.