Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Not as bad as people say it is

tt0938283

Come on people, give this movie credit. Of course since it is based off something else it will not live up to the expectations of the viewers. But this movie is an exciting, entertaining movie with an interesting story. It seems like if a movie is just entertaining and that is pretty much all then people give the movie a bad review. Take for example Knight and Day and Eagle Eye. Those got bad reviews but were fun, entertaining and no brainer movies. It is interesting that the new Twilight movie is getting a lot better reviews than The Last Airbender when The Last Airbender was in my opinion a better movie than the new Twilight movie. The movie also has incredible special effects and I love those kind of movies. So all in all this movie wasn't that bad of a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-557

ur0108019

title: Not as bad as people say it is review: Come on people, give this movie credit. Of course since it is based off something else it will not live up to the expectations of the viewers. But this movie is an exciting, entertaining movie with an interesting story. It seems like if a movie is just entertaining and that is pretty much all then people give the movie a bad review. Take for example Knight and Day and Eagle Eye. Those got bad reviews but were fun, entertaining and no brainer movies. It is interesting that the new Twilight movie is getting a lot better reviews than The Last Airbender when The Last Airbender was in my opinion a better movie than the new Twilight movie. The movie also has incredible special effects and I love those kind of movies. So all in all this movie wasn't that bad of a movie.

An absolutely disastrous film

tt0938283

I know that Avatar: The Last Airbender is a very popular animated series, but I have never had too much interest in it and I have only seen a few episodes.So, I cannot evaluate the fidelity the film adaptation The Last Airbender has to that TV series.Nevertheless, faithful or not, The Last Airbender is an atrocious film which wastes resources in an incoherent, badly structured and poorly told story.I do not know if the problem was that director and screenwriter M. Night Shyamalan tried to introduce too many mythology and characters in the film, or if the original material is so complicated that it looses coherence at being adapted on this way.The point is that the story wanders lazily, without any impulse or rhythm in order to involve us on its structure.In the tradition of the worst adaptations, The Last Airbender seems to have been constructed around obligatory points which must be visited, even though the way of coherently joining them is not found.And besides of all that, we have the multiple holes and forced drama from the screenplay: How many times is hero kidnapped by the villains, only to escape in the most ridiculous way? Did the hero need to consult a mystic dragon to know he must use water in order to fight against fire? Well, the list of goofs like that is too long.The action scenes feel slow and listless.For example, the first time the hero impulses a rebellion against the fire tribe should provoke excitement and joy, but the sequence is so weakly orchestrated that it only provokes sarcasm for its obvious artificiality...what takes me to Shyamalan and his declining career.With every new film, this director is increasingly away from the standard he established with The Sixth Sense.However, I had the slight hope that The Last Airbender was going to be better than the tedious The Happening and the mediocre Lady in the Water, which had both disappointed me pretty much.Nevertheless, his career bottomed with The Last Airbender, at the same time he shows that he lacks of the appropriate sensibility to balance action, adventure and philosophy (or whatever you wanna call the frequent speeches about responsibility and destiny which "adorn" the screenplay).In other words, Shyamalan shows that he has lost every narrative talent in this movie.The special effects are quite good, but I felt pity to see that they are trapped in such bad movie, which does not have even a pinch of excitement or the most basic emotions to get us interested in story or the destiny from the hollow characters.And what can I say about the performances? They are all authentically pathetic.For you to understand how bad this movie is (if you have not seen it yet), I have to say that I found the deplorable Dragonball: Evolution to be less bad (I cannot say "better") than The Last Airbender.So, needless to say that I do not recommend this vomiting movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-817

ur6216723

title: An absolutely disastrous film review: I know that Avatar: The Last Airbender is a very popular animated series, but I have never had too much interest in it and I have only seen a few episodes.So, I cannot evaluate the fidelity the film adaptation The Last Airbender has to that TV series.Nevertheless, faithful or not, The Last Airbender is an atrocious film which wastes resources in an incoherent, badly structured and poorly told story.I do not know if the problem was that director and screenwriter M. Night Shyamalan tried to introduce too many mythology and characters in the film, or if the original material is so complicated that it looses coherence at being adapted on this way.The point is that the story wanders lazily, without any impulse or rhythm in order to involve us on its structure.In the tradition of the worst adaptations, The Last Airbender seems to have been constructed around obligatory points which must be visited, even though the way of coherently joining them is not found.And besides of all that, we have the multiple holes and forced drama from the screenplay: How many times is hero kidnapped by the villains, only to escape in the most ridiculous way? Did the hero need to consult a mystic dragon to know he must use water in order to fight against fire? Well, the list of goofs like that is too long.The action scenes feel slow and listless.For example, the first time the hero impulses a rebellion against the fire tribe should provoke excitement and joy, but the sequence is so weakly orchestrated that it only provokes sarcasm for its obvious artificiality...what takes me to Shyamalan and his declining career.With every new film, this director is increasingly away from the standard he established with The Sixth Sense.However, I had the slight hope that The Last Airbender was going to be better than the tedious The Happening and the mediocre Lady in the Water, which had both disappointed me pretty much.Nevertheless, his career bottomed with The Last Airbender, at the same time he shows that he lacks of the appropriate sensibility to balance action, adventure and philosophy (or whatever you wanna call the frequent speeches about responsibility and destiny which "adorn" the screenplay).In other words, Shyamalan shows that he has lost every narrative talent in this movie.The special effects are quite good, but I felt pity to see that they are trapped in such bad movie, which does not have even a pinch of excitement or the most basic emotions to get us interested in story or the destiny from the hollow characters.And what can I say about the performances? They are all authentically pathetic.For you to understand how bad this movie is (if you have not seen it yet), I have to say that I found the deplorable Dragonball: Evolution to be less bad (I cannot say "better") than The Last Airbender.So, needless to say that I do not recommend this vomiting movie.

Not fantastic, but not terrible.

tt0938283

For those that don't know what the story is about, The Last Airbender is taken from an animation TV series on Nickelodeon. An Airbender is a person capable of using a power to control elements, such as wind and fire. The young protagonist, Aang, ran away because of the pressures of being an Airbender, and goes into a state of suspended animation. He is unfrozen by 2 others, Ktara & Sokka, but after he wakes up, finds he has been out for a long time. Since then, the Fire Nation has disrupted peace, launching a plot to stop Air Nomads so that they may rule over them and the rest of the world. It's up to the Airbender to help restore peace.SO let's start with the bad: The movie just didn't have enough to make it great by any means. Much of the dialog was stiff, as was some of the acting. For a kid's movie, it was humorless. I saw the movie in 2D, but I heard that the 3D was awful, as it was originally intended to be a 2D. Don't try to compare it to other good movies such as perhaps Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. And of course, it will never be able to replace 61 episodes that made up the TV series, because much of the characterization and story line is missing. The same can be said of countless other comic book and TV series adaptations.The good: The action was well-done for a PG rated movie, as were the special effects. Scenery, good cam angles, and the general mythology behind the story were spot-on. I would at least compare it to some lite kung fu movies. Without, umm... any Asians.But there are two different types of people who hate this movie so much that they ridiculously give it a rating of 'one': 'Professional' critics that hate M. Night Shyamalan, and 34 year old geek fans of The Last Airbender TV series that still live with their parents, and probably have yet to see the movie. Oh, and lets add a third one: all those that give me a 'No' to "Was the above review useful to you?", although they are probably one and the same. Just a few glances at some comments here and in other sites like IMDb show some comments like "This movie sucked because it wasn't like the TV series". I also thought it was funny that low ratings were coming in far before the movie was released. Among some of the criticism was that the characters were boring, & didn't have enough background to them. So what? You all REALLY expected a so-so TV series to take off in an Oscar-winning performance on the big screen? Please. Shyamalan may no longer be the "it's a twist!" director we kind of fell in love with 10 years ago, but the hate felt for him after The Village & The Lady in The Water has gone on too long.So what should be your expectations of it? You should go see the movie as an action/adventure, some sword and sorcery w/martial arts. It is NOT the epic, fun-filled family film it wants to be, sure, but to call it the worst movie of the summer? Please. You know what family films were bad? Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. The Karate Kid remake. The Last Song. Marmaduke. Anything in 2008-2010 with the word "Twilight" in the title. I would rather see Airbender 3 times then a second more of those movies. Seriously, if you're that anal about movies, just wait for it on Netflix or something.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-440

ur2600145

title: Not fantastic, but not terrible. review: For those that don't know what the story is about, The Last Airbender is taken from an animation TV series on Nickelodeon. An Airbender is a person capable of using a power to control elements, such as wind and fire. The young protagonist, Aang, ran away because of the pressures of being an Airbender, and goes into a state of suspended animation. He is unfrozen by 2 others, Ktara & Sokka, but after he wakes up, finds he has been out for a long time. Since then, the Fire Nation has disrupted peace, launching a plot to stop Air Nomads so that they may rule over them and the rest of the world. It's up to the Airbender to help restore peace.SO let's start with the bad: The movie just didn't have enough to make it great by any means. Much of the dialog was stiff, as was some of the acting. For a kid's movie, it was humorless. I saw the movie in 2D, but I heard that the 3D was awful, as it was originally intended to be a 2D. Don't try to compare it to other good movies such as perhaps Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. And of course, it will never be able to replace 61 episodes that made up the TV series, because much of the characterization and story line is missing. The same can be said of countless other comic book and TV series adaptations.The good: The action was well-done for a PG rated movie, as were the special effects. Scenery, good cam angles, and the general mythology behind the story were spot-on. I would at least compare it to some lite kung fu movies. Without, umm... any Asians.But there are two different types of people who hate this movie so much that they ridiculously give it a rating of 'one': 'Professional' critics that hate M. Night Shyamalan, and 34 year old geek fans of The Last Airbender TV series that still live with their parents, and probably have yet to see the movie. Oh, and lets add a third one: all those that give me a 'No' to "Was the above review useful to you?", although they are probably one and the same. Just a few glances at some comments here and in other sites like IMDb show some comments like "This movie sucked because it wasn't like the TV series". I also thought it was funny that low ratings were coming in far before the movie was released. Among some of the criticism was that the characters were boring, & didn't have enough background to them. So what? You all REALLY expected a so-so TV series to take off in an Oscar-winning performance on the big screen? Please. Shyamalan may no longer be the "it's a twist!" director we kind of fell in love with 10 years ago, but the hate felt for him after The Village & The Lady in The Water has gone on too long.So what should be your expectations of it? You should go see the movie as an action/adventure, some sword and sorcery w/martial arts. It is NOT the epic, fun-filled family film it wants to be, sure, but to call it the worst movie of the summer? Please. You know what family films were bad? Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. The Karate Kid remake. The Last Song. Marmaduke. Anything in 2008-2010 with the word "Twilight" in the title. I would rather see Airbender 3 times then a second more of those movies. Seriously, if you're that anal about movies, just wait for it on Netflix or something.

Best movie ever made 10/10

tt0938283

I cant believe how many bad reviews i read about this movie & i thought to myself i have to watch it & see how bad it was myself. Is everyone crazy this movie is amazing great story line, amazing acting its like a cross between the matrix & crouching tiger hidden dragon. Well i think most the reviews written here are fake or IMDb just paid people to put up bad reviews. So my conclusion is that this movie & the dragon ball z movie are the two best movies i've seen in the last few years. Im thinking that this is also up there with You got served. The special effects were amazing almost as good as The Power Rangers. Keep up the good work Mr Shyamalan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-576

ur17870498

title: Best movie ever made 10/10 review: I cant believe how many bad reviews i read about this movie & i thought to myself i have to watch it & see how bad it was myself. Is everyone crazy this movie is amazing great story line, amazing acting its like a cross between the matrix & crouching tiger hidden dragon. Well i think most the reviews written here are fake or IMDb just paid people to put up bad reviews. So my conclusion is that this movie & the dragon ball z movie are the two best movies i've seen in the last few years. Im thinking that this is also up there with You got served. The special effects were amazing almost as good as The Power Rangers. Keep up the good work Mr Shyamalan.

Avatar: The Last Time I Get Bent Over by Shyamalan

tt0938283

I generally don't hate movies; I always say "hey, at least it entertained me." But this movie was absolutely horrendous. I don't even know where to begin. I am an avid watcher of the animated series on Nickelodeon, as are my other two siblings so we went into this movie with such high expectations... we were like "You can't ruin a movie like this! It's already made!!!" Obviously, all you have to do is give it to M. Night Shyamalan.Mr. Shyamalan wrote and directed the movie. For their ridiculous choice in choosing a director AND writer, I feel like the president of Nickelodeon should make a public apology and promise to make it right for the next one. My five year old cousin could have written a better script. They literally had lines like "It's time to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in theirs." What the hell does that even mean!? I'll tell you, it means the script writer is a moron. The dialog was just horrendous, they had narration that did absolutely nothing for you, and the characters blurted random facts that nobody cared about. They tried to explain things through random dialog, but all it did was annoy everybody.Next up was the mispronunciation of the names, locations, and the word Avatar. They mispronounced Saka, Aang, and the word Avatar amongst many other things. Really?! How do you mispronounce words like that? It's not like it was a book where it's open for interpretation, it's based on a cartoon and the words are easy! He may have tried to give it a more Asian feel or something, but that was a bad move. Words that the show is built around, and the fan base is more than familiar with should not be tampered with no matter how much of an idiot you are.The bending… it was stupid. They had to do a hop, skip and an interpretive dance to get anything moving. In the show, the movements of the benders were congruent with the movements of the elements but in this they move ridiculous amounts to move a drop of water. Also, the moves were horrible. Each element had its own form of martial arts in the show to represent the force of each. Earth was very strong, fire was aggressive, water was very fluid, and air was much like breathing. I'm no martial artist, but that was obvious. However in the movie they all look feminine and it made me really mad.Character representation was pretty crappy also. Sorry, let me correct myself, it was also horrible. Sokka was played by the guy who plays Jasper in Twilight. In the cartoon he's clumsy, goofy, yet protective. In the movie, he's pretty much Jasper. He has a blank face the entire time, he's older than he should be, and he sucks. Aang was a bit chubby for my liking, his acting was also bad, and he made airbending look like a dance from a Miami nightclub. Katara was also bad acting, she looked a mess the entire time and she was a pansy, although in the show she was strong and assertive. Zuko's hair was not the way it was supposed to be, his burn was pretty much not visible, but his acting was good. Uncle Iroh was skinny, why?! Cuz Shyamalan is a freakin idiot. The actor did a good job with the wisdom portrayal but he couldn't capture everything the fat Uncle Iroh did in the show. Fire Lord Ozai didn't have the long hair or chin hair he was supposed to have, and he didn't seem as truly evil as the cartoon one did. Avatar Roku wasn't an Avatar at all, but instead he was a dragon and is never referred to as Avatar Roku. The earth village people were also poor actors, and I don't know what more to say about them besides the choreographed bending was just ridiculous.The racism factor. I don't wanna call Shyamalan a racist. The show was about the series of nations separated by ability coming together to live in peace. I can understand him separating the nations into races as well. What I don't understand is why all the good guys with any lines are white. The entire water nation seems to be of Eskimo descent, but Sokka, Katara, their Grandma and the teacher were all pure white, because they have lines in the movie.I've never truly hated a movie. I've disliked them, I've critiqued them, I've been annoyed and bored. But this movie, I hated for crushing one of the best cartoons ever. I've realized that nightmares are really just dreams directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Don't waste your time or money. Push Nickelodeon for a reboot immediately.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-285

ur16975896

title: Avatar: The Last Time I Get Bent Over by Shyamalan review: I generally don't hate movies; I always say "hey, at least it entertained me." But this movie was absolutely horrendous. I don't even know where to begin. I am an avid watcher of the animated series on Nickelodeon, as are my other two siblings so we went into this movie with such high expectations... we were like "You can't ruin a movie like this! It's already made!!!" Obviously, all you have to do is give it to M. Night Shyamalan.Mr. Shyamalan wrote and directed the movie. For their ridiculous choice in choosing a director AND writer, I feel like the president of Nickelodeon should make a public apology and promise to make it right for the next one. My five year old cousin could have written a better script. They literally had lines like "It's time to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in theirs." What the hell does that even mean!? I'll tell you, it means the script writer is a moron. The dialog was just horrendous, they had narration that did absolutely nothing for you, and the characters blurted random facts that nobody cared about. They tried to explain things through random dialog, but all it did was annoy everybody.Next up was the mispronunciation of the names, locations, and the word Avatar. They mispronounced Saka, Aang, and the word Avatar amongst many other things. Really?! How do you mispronounce words like that? It's not like it was a book where it's open for interpretation, it's based on a cartoon and the words are easy! He may have tried to give it a more Asian feel or something, but that was a bad move. Words that the show is built around, and the fan base is more than familiar with should not be tampered with no matter how much of an idiot you are.The bending… it was stupid. They had to do a hop, skip and an interpretive dance to get anything moving. In the show, the movements of the benders were congruent with the movements of the elements but in this they move ridiculous amounts to move a drop of water. Also, the moves were horrible. Each element had its own form of martial arts in the show to represent the force of each. Earth was very strong, fire was aggressive, water was very fluid, and air was much like breathing. I'm no martial artist, but that was obvious. However in the movie they all look feminine and it made me really mad.Character representation was pretty crappy also. Sorry, let me correct myself, it was also horrible. Sokka was played by the guy who plays Jasper in Twilight. In the cartoon he's clumsy, goofy, yet protective. In the movie, he's pretty much Jasper. He has a blank face the entire time, he's older than he should be, and he sucks. Aang was a bit chubby for my liking, his acting was also bad, and he made airbending look like a dance from a Miami nightclub. Katara was also bad acting, she looked a mess the entire time and she was a pansy, although in the show she was strong and assertive. Zuko's hair was not the way it was supposed to be, his burn was pretty much not visible, but his acting was good. Uncle Iroh was skinny, why?! Cuz Shyamalan is a freakin idiot. The actor did a good job with the wisdom portrayal but he couldn't capture everything the fat Uncle Iroh did in the show. Fire Lord Ozai didn't have the long hair or chin hair he was supposed to have, and he didn't seem as truly evil as the cartoon one did. Avatar Roku wasn't an Avatar at all, but instead he was a dragon and is never referred to as Avatar Roku. The earth village people were also poor actors, and I don't know what more to say about them besides the choreographed bending was just ridiculous.The racism factor. I don't wanna call Shyamalan a racist. The show was about the series of nations separated by ability coming together to live in peace. I can understand him separating the nations into races as well. What I don't understand is why all the good guys with any lines are white. The entire water nation seems to be of Eskimo descent, but Sokka, Katara, their Grandma and the teacher were all pure white, because they have lines in the movie.I've never truly hated a movie. I've disliked them, I've critiqued them, I've been annoyed and bored. But this movie, I hated for crushing one of the best cartoons ever. I've realized that nightmares are really just dreams directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Don't waste your time or money. Push Nickelodeon for a reboot immediately.

These horrible reviews are ridiculous

tt0938283

My entire family enjoys the Avatar series--we own all the DVDs. We had high expectations for this movie, and we all enjoyed it quite a bit. I think some people have fallen off the deep end with these angry, vicious reviews. The Last Airbender will not be a front runner for best picture, but to rate it 1/10 or to claim you've "been raped" by the director is insane. I understand the racial casting issue is causing some anger, but good grief. There are some truly horrible movies out there, such as "where the wild things are", but this is not one of them. It is a fair-to-average adaptation of an excellent animated series that may disappoint some truly hardcore Avatar fans, and confuse some newcomers, but overall my family is very glad we went.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-241

ur13049290

title: These horrible reviews are ridiculous review: My entire family enjoys the Avatar series--we own all the DVDs. We had high expectations for this movie, and we all enjoyed it quite a bit. I think some people have fallen off the deep end with these angry, vicious reviews. The Last Airbender will not be a front runner for best picture, but to rate it 1/10 or to claim you've "been raped" by the director is insane. I understand the racial casting issue is causing some anger, but good grief. There are some truly horrible movies out there, such as "where the wild things are", but this is not one of them. It is a fair-to-average adaptation of an excellent animated series that may disappoint some truly hardcore Avatar fans, and confuse some newcomers, but overall my family is very glad we went.

Horrible Excuse For A Film

tt0938283

I love M Night Shymalan. I really do. After this movie it is hard to even recognize him as a filmmaker. I loved Sixth Sense, best thriller ever made, loved Signs, liked Village, one of the few who liked Lady In The Water. I was a fan. I thought The Happening would be the low point of his career. I was wrong. If you thought The Happening was bad this movie is disgusting. The story is interesting it has a capable story. That is probably why the television show is so popular. I have never seen the show and my friends who are fans of the show were so upset about the destroying of there show was unbelievable. Now to point out the flaws: 1. The script was terrible sometimes laughable but mostly boring. The best thing about The Happening was that you could laugh at the cheesy lines. During this film you just find yourself falling asleep. 2. No character development AT ALL. You do not care about anyone in this movie. I was so bored I just wanted them to all die so the movie would be over. 3. The acting was significantly bad. The only actor worth mentioning in this film is Dev Patel but even he could not save his role from the horrible script. Which is the reason for most of the bad acting because these really are not the most terrible actors. 4. Long dancing around with nothing going on along with long actually boring action sequences. There is probably only one cool effects moment. 5. I did not see this movie in 3D, but from my sources I have heard that that was the worst part of the movie. The last minute 3D upgrading. I hear it makes things blurry, discolored, and distracting. If 3D is the worst part then MAN that must be bad. The movie was bad enough without the 3D. Movies like Twilight they really are not good movies. I like to see great movies like the old classics and academy award nominees but at least Eclipse is entertaining and fun to watch with your girlfriend. The end of the film hints a sequel but that definitely will not happen. It will be like Eragon and Inkheart a first movie FAIL. I hoped this helped. If you would like to talk to me about my review send me an email at uwanttoknome@aim.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-602

ur15897325

title: Horrible Excuse For A Film review: I love M Night Shymalan. I really do. After this movie it is hard to even recognize him as a filmmaker. I loved Sixth Sense, best thriller ever made, loved Signs, liked Village, one of the few who liked Lady In The Water. I was a fan. I thought The Happening would be the low point of his career. I was wrong. If you thought The Happening was bad this movie is disgusting. The story is interesting it has a capable story. That is probably why the television show is so popular. I have never seen the show and my friends who are fans of the show were so upset about the destroying of there show was unbelievable. Now to point out the flaws: 1. The script was terrible sometimes laughable but mostly boring. The best thing about The Happening was that you could laugh at the cheesy lines. During this film you just find yourself falling asleep. 2. No character development AT ALL. You do not care about anyone in this movie. I was so bored I just wanted them to all die so the movie would be over. 3. The acting was significantly bad. The only actor worth mentioning in this film is Dev Patel but even he could not save his role from the horrible script. Which is the reason for most of the bad acting because these really are not the most terrible actors. 4. Long dancing around with nothing going on along with long actually boring action sequences. There is probably only one cool effects moment. 5. I did not see this movie in 3D, but from my sources I have heard that that was the worst part of the movie. The last minute 3D upgrading. I hear it makes things blurry, discolored, and distracting. If 3D is the worst part then MAN that must be bad. The movie was bad enough without the 3D. Movies like Twilight they really are not good movies. I like to see great movies like the old classics and academy award nominees but at least Eclipse is entertaining and fun to watch with your girlfriend. The end of the film hints a sequel but that definitely will not happen. It will be like Eragon and Inkheart a first movie FAIL. I hoped this helped. If you would like to talk to me about my review send me an email at uwanttoknome@aim.com

I Will Show No Mercy!!

tt0938283

God Damn It!! As much as every fan of classic anime like DBZ and Avatar want to see a decent film version of the show, Hollywood keeps f*cking it up for everyone. First came "Dragonball Evolution" in its crappyness, now comes this. I'll admit the trailer looked kind of awesome and interesting, and knowing Shyamalan was going to directing it I had extremely high hopes. But then one TV spot came on, and I heard the actor for Aang blandly say "I will stop them", in a very monotonous and un-excited voice. From then on I knew it was going to be screwed up. How right I was. First off, the casting was terrible, aside maybe Dev Patel as Zuko. I heard Jesse McCartney was at first supposed to play him. WTF?/!! Idiots, are you serious?! As for the casting of white actors and all that, yeah I do believe it takes away from the film. Expecting the audience to "suspend disbelief' was ignorant and basically a lazy choice. The acting is over all just so damn drab the characters just end up nothing like the ones in the show. So, with that, I watched the film in a theater where my low expectations were sent even further to sheer hopelessness. I mean it was just painful to watch honestly.Our director tries to save the film with nifty effects and action, but it's all negated by the terrible characterization and the hour and forty minute run-time. A rushed story and incorrectly pronounced names just killed what could've been a great film. Shyamalan, I hope your career dies with this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-864

ur20916867

title: I Will Show No Mercy!! review: God Damn It!! As much as every fan of classic anime like DBZ and Avatar want to see a decent film version of the show, Hollywood keeps f*cking it up for everyone. First came "Dragonball Evolution" in its crappyness, now comes this. I'll admit the trailer looked kind of awesome and interesting, and knowing Shyamalan was going to directing it I had extremely high hopes. But then one TV spot came on, and I heard the actor for Aang blandly say "I will stop them", in a very monotonous and un-excited voice. From then on I knew it was going to be screwed up. How right I was. First off, the casting was terrible, aside maybe Dev Patel as Zuko. I heard Jesse McCartney was at first supposed to play him. WTF?/!! Idiots, are you serious?! As for the casting of white actors and all that, yeah I do believe it takes away from the film. Expecting the audience to "suspend disbelief' was ignorant and basically a lazy choice. The acting is over all just so damn drab the characters just end up nothing like the ones in the show. So, with that, I watched the film in a theater where my low expectations were sent even further to sheer hopelessness. I mean it was just painful to watch honestly.Our director tries to save the film with nifty effects and action, but it's all negated by the terrible characterization and the hour and forty minute run-time. A rushed story and incorrectly pronounced names just killed what could've been a great film. Shyamalan, I hope your career dies with this film.

Flesh and blood anime...

tt0938283

This isn't the first time (nor will it be the last, I'm sure) that anime has been recast in flesh and blood (see FIST OF THE NORTH STAR, CRYING FREEMAN, etc.). While I can't speak to the fidelity of the movie to its source material (AVATAR happens to be one of the few anime I've never really been interested in seeing, for some reason), I CAN say that the 3-D live-action version is well worth seeing- on the Big Screen, and in 3-D, anyway. (This is the first time since the mid-1980s- when both REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and ROBOT MONSTER were broadcast on television in 3-D- that I've seen 3-D done this well. Some of the shots are just staggering.) Shyamalan has crafted an epic about the schism that keeps all Humans "equal but separate." And, for the first time since TETSUO: THE IRON MAN (and TETSUO II: THE BODY HAMMER), we have performers who actually LOOK like manga and anime characters; the "Kung Fu Kid" who played the lead is a dead Ringer for the anime character. THE LAST AIRBENDER is also frequently moving in a way that many kids (who may be fans of the Nicktoon) may not realize or appreciate (though, as an adult, I picked up on), especially when discussions revolve around the aforementioned Eternal Schism that may never cease to exist... (A side note: prior to the movie, we were teated to a 3-D preview of an upcoming SUPERMAN cartoon- called MEGAMIND- wherein the names have been changed in an attempt to try to protect the guilty- the plagiarists. It's truly amazing that they're still ripping off copyrighted comic book characters when there are so many Golden Age heroes now in the public domain. One of these days- perhaps- they'll look around and realize that there are characters like Richard Corben's DEN out there just waiting to be discovered.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-668

ur1530907

title: Flesh and blood anime... review: This isn't the first time (nor will it be the last, I'm sure) that anime has been recast in flesh and blood (see FIST OF THE NORTH STAR, CRYING FREEMAN, etc.). While I can't speak to the fidelity of the movie to its source material (AVATAR happens to be one of the few anime I've never really been interested in seeing, for some reason), I CAN say that the 3-D live-action version is well worth seeing- on the Big Screen, and in 3-D, anyway. (This is the first time since the mid-1980s- when both REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and ROBOT MONSTER were broadcast on television in 3-D- that I've seen 3-D done this well. Some of the shots are just staggering.) Shyamalan has crafted an epic about the schism that keeps all Humans "equal but separate." And, for the first time since TETSUO: THE IRON MAN (and TETSUO II: THE BODY HAMMER), we have performers who actually LOOK like manga and anime characters; the "Kung Fu Kid" who played the lead is a dead Ringer for the anime character. THE LAST AIRBENDER is also frequently moving in a way that many kids (who may be fans of the Nicktoon) may not realize or appreciate (though, as an adult, I picked up on), especially when discussions revolve around the aforementioned Eternal Schism that may never cease to exist... (A side note: prior to the movie, we were teated to a 3-D preview of an upcoming SUPERMAN cartoon- called MEGAMIND- wherein the names have been changed in an attempt to try to protect the guilty- the plagiarists. It's truly amazing that they're still ripping off copyrighted comic book characters when there are so many Golden Age heroes now in the public domain. One of these days- perhaps- they'll look around and realize that there are characters like Richard Corben's DEN out there just waiting to be discovered.)

Far from what I expected

tt0938283

Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, The Last Airbender tells the story of a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire. and the only one who can solve this is a little boy named Aang, the latest reincarnation of the Avatar, the only person in the world able to control all four elements. With the help of two siblings, Katara and Sokka, they go on a journey to defeat the Lord of the Fire Nation. Now Although the movie isn't quite accurate and the timeline is a little weird, The story is a little weak, the plot isn't well developed, the movie barely fulfilled my expectations as a fan of the t.v. series. The movie is a little dark for my taste and the rhythm is way too slow. The cast has its pros and cons. Noah Ringer performing as Aang is quite convincing as well as Nicola Petz as Katara, Dev Patel as Suko is in my opinion a little overacted and Jackson Rathbone as Sokka I feel that he didn't understand his character and he didn't get fully into him. In conclusion, The Last Airbender was a movie that I enjoy just because I'm a fan but it was way far from what I expected also as a fan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1040

ur6208088

title: Far from what I expected review: Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, The Last Airbender tells the story of a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire. and the only one who can solve this is a little boy named Aang, the latest reincarnation of the Avatar, the only person in the world able to control all four elements. With the help of two siblings, Katara and Sokka, they go on a journey to defeat the Lord of the Fire Nation. Now Although the movie isn't quite accurate and the timeline is a little weird, The story is a little weak, the plot isn't well developed, the movie barely fulfilled my expectations as a fan of the t.v. series. The movie is a little dark for my taste and the rhythm is way too slow. The cast has its pros and cons. Noah Ringer performing as Aang is quite convincing as well as Nicola Petz as Katara, Dev Patel as Suko is in my opinion a little overacted and Jackson Rathbone as Sokka I feel that he didn't understand his character and he didn't get fully into him. In conclusion, The Last Airbender was a movie that I enjoy just because I'm a fan but it was way far from what I expected also as a fan.

What is wrong with everyone??

tt0938283

I am stunned by the hatred and loathing I am seeing at this site for The Last Airbender.I did not watch the show. I am not a fan at ALL of M. Knight Shyamalan. Therefore, I did not have high expectations for this movie. I am happy to say that I was wrong!! This is the FIRST... the VERY FIRST... Shyamalan movie I've enjoyed! This movie is epic! The acting is FANTASTIC - everyone is great. The CGI effects and created worlds are visually stunningly and beautiful. And the ending - what a great, unexpected surprise, making way for another one! From what I gather, there were 4 books to this TV series when it was on. There is NO WAY that any filmmaker can put so much content into a 2 hour film. Instead, he smartly left it open for other movies.I wish everyone would watch this movie with an open mind and just enjoy it for what it is. If you haven't seen it yet, please watch it and judge for yourself. People are being unnecessarily harsh on it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-404

ur0555595

title: What is wrong with everyone?? review: I am stunned by the hatred and loathing I am seeing at this site for The Last Airbender.I did not watch the show. I am not a fan at ALL of M. Knight Shyamalan. Therefore, I did not have high expectations for this movie. I am happy to say that I was wrong!! This is the FIRST... the VERY FIRST... Shyamalan movie I've enjoyed! This movie is epic! The acting is FANTASTIC - everyone is great. The CGI effects and created worlds are visually stunningly and beautiful. And the ending - what a great, unexpected surprise, making way for another one! From what I gather, there were 4 books to this TV series when it was on. There is NO WAY that any filmmaker can put so much content into a 2 hour film. Instead, he smartly left it open for other movies.I wish everyone would watch this movie with an open mind and just enjoy it for what it is. If you haven't seen it yet, please watch it and judge for yourself. People are being unnecessarily harsh on it.

It's in the running for one of the worst films of 2010!

tt0938283

I've wanted to see 'The Last Airbender' for a long, long time. I knew I shouldn't set my expectations high when I first learned that M. Night Shyamalan was to be the director; he hasn't made a good movie in years! Then, a few months ago, the first trailer for the film was released. From the trailer, the film looked decent. It looked like it was going to be cheesy and stupid, but at least fun. I found out I was wrong. The movie wasn't cheesy, nor was it any fun! 'The Last Airbender' was a stupid, disgraceful adaptation of the original, beloved TV series.I hated how the majority of the main characters' names were mispronounced. Perhaps the changed pronunciations were more correct, but the fact that the film is based on the show, the original pronunciations of the names should have been kept. Aang in the movie is "Aw-ng". Sokka is "Soak-ah." Iroh is "E-roh." Also, Avatar is pronounced "Aw-vatar." It's annoying.I hated how Shyamalan chose mostly unknown actors to portray some of the main characters. I hated how Shyamalan chose a boy (Noah Ringer) who has no skills in acting whatsoever to portray Aang, the main character, just because the boy knew martial arts. Personally, I would've chose acting ability over martial arts ability. I hated how all of the acting were wooden and lifeless, aside from Dev Patel and Shaun Toub. Dev Patel is a really good actor, and did a good job in 'Slumdog Millionaire.' Shaun Toub was really good in 'Crash', too. I feel that the majority of the reason why the acting was so lifeless and wooden is because the dialogue and screenplay was lifeless and sucked. Much of the dialogue in 'The Last Airbender' are long-ass narrations – the television show did it much better and shorter. I hated how, many times, the long-ass narrations took the place of actually showing us what happens; we hear about what happens instead of actually getting to see on screen what happens.I hated how the movie's so dark, while the television series is beautiful and bright. I hated the choppy storyline. The film's supposed to be a type of road-movie, but we go from city to city without any acknowledgment. We never know how many days have passed, or if it's the same day or not. We go from place to place without ever getting the chance to settle down and actually care about the characters and the situations they're in. The choppy pacing of the film never allows us to like anything or anyone in the movie.I hated how the order that some dialogue and actions take place were out of order. Things should have been said before they were actually said, and things should have happened at another time, or vice-versa. For example, when Aang escapes from the grasps of Prince Zuko early in the film, Aang takes out his glider. After Aang takes out his glider, Zuko tells him, "You have nowhere to run!" Then, Aang uses his glider to fly away. Logically, Zuko should have cornered Aang, tell him that he had nowhere to run, and then Aang would pull out his glider and fly away. It's ridiculous! Some things in the film shouldn't have even been said! For example, in the final act of the film, the Aang is at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation currently do not know where he is. But then Admiral Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) suddenly tells the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis) that they think Aang's at the Northwern Water Temple. How the hell do they think and know that!? It's unbelievable. I'm not even finished explaining yet! Right after saying that, Admiral Zhao then tells the Fire Lord that they should attack the Northern Water Temple because the scrolls they found earlier in the film revealed that the Moon and Ocean spirits were located at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation wants to kill the Moon and Ocean spirits. Now, if the film left just the whole 'Moon-and-Ocean-Spirits' part as the reason for attacking the Northern Water Temple, and just-so-happen to find Aang there as well, I would've believed'em. The first part about "Ooh, I have a strong feeling the Avatar's at the Northern Water Temple" shouldn't have been said at all!I also really hated how all of the water-bending, air-bending, earth-bending, and fire-bending had excessively long movements, resulting in actually very little happening. In the television series, the elemental bending followed the movements of the characters. In the film, each character does a series of long-ass hand gestures, and then a short burst of elemental bending occurs.Now, what do I like about the film? The actress who portrays Katara, Nicola Peltz, actually sounds a lot like Katara from the animated series. Also, Princess Yue (Seychelle Gabriel) is really pretty in the film, and looks a lot like her animated counterpart.'The Last Airbender' isn't fun at all. All of the jokes, joy, and life in the animated series has been left out of the film adaptation. I want sequels to this film only to give Shyamalan a chance at redemption and perhaps have other people write the screenplays for the next ones. Or even better, have a better director reboot the film series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-532

ur16821874

title: It's in the running for one of the worst films of 2010! review: I've wanted to see 'The Last Airbender' for a long, long time. I knew I shouldn't set my expectations high when I first learned that M. Night Shyamalan was to be the director; he hasn't made a good movie in years! Then, a few months ago, the first trailer for the film was released. From the trailer, the film looked decent. It looked like it was going to be cheesy and stupid, but at least fun. I found out I was wrong. The movie wasn't cheesy, nor was it any fun! 'The Last Airbender' was a stupid, disgraceful adaptation of the original, beloved TV series.I hated how the majority of the main characters' names were mispronounced. Perhaps the changed pronunciations were more correct, but the fact that the film is based on the show, the original pronunciations of the names should have been kept. Aang in the movie is "Aw-ng". Sokka is "Soak-ah." Iroh is "E-roh." Also, Avatar is pronounced "Aw-vatar." It's annoying.I hated how Shyamalan chose mostly unknown actors to portray some of the main characters. I hated how Shyamalan chose a boy (Noah Ringer) who has no skills in acting whatsoever to portray Aang, the main character, just because the boy knew martial arts. Personally, I would've chose acting ability over martial arts ability. I hated how all of the acting were wooden and lifeless, aside from Dev Patel and Shaun Toub. Dev Patel is a really good actor, and did a good job in 'Slumdog Millionaire.' Shaun Toub was really good in 'Crash', too. I feel that the majority of the reason why the acting was so lifeless and wooden is because the dialogue and screenplay was lifeless and sucked. Much of the dialogue in 'The Last Airbender' are long-ass narrations – the television show did it much better and shorter. I hated how, many times, the long-ass narrations took the place of actually showing us what happens; we hear about what happens instead of actually getting to see on screen what happens.I hated how the movie's so dark, while the television series is beautiful and bright. I hated the choppy storyline. The film's supposed to be a type of road-movie, but we go from city to city without any acknowledgment. We never know how many days have passed, or if it's the same day or not. We go from place to place without ever getting the chance to settle down and actually care about the characters and the situations they're in. The choppy pacing of the film never allows us to like anything or anyone in the movie.I hated how the order that some dialogue and actions take place were out of order. Things should have been said before they were actually said, and things should have happened at another time, or vice-versa. For example, when Aang escapes from the grasps of Prince Zuko early in the film, Aang takes out his glider. After Aang takes out his glider, Zuko tells him, "You have nowhere to run!" Then, Aang uses his glider to fly away. Logically, Zuko should have cornered Aang, tell him that he had nowhere to run, and then Aang would pull out his glider and fly away. It's ridiculous! Some things in the film shouldn't have even been said! For example, in the final act of the film, the Aang is at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation currently do not know where he is. But then Admiral Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) suddenly tells the Fire Lord (Cliff Curtis) that they think Aang's at the Northwern Water Temple. How the hell do they think and know that!? It's unbelievable. I'm not even finished explaining yet! Right after saying that, Admiral Zhao then tells the Fire Lord that they should attack the Northern Water Temple because the scrolls they found earlier in the film revealed that the Moon and Ocean spirits were located at the Northern Water Temple, and the Fire Nation wants to kill the Moon and Ocean spirits. Now, if the film left just the whole 'Moon-and-Ocean-Spirits' part as the reason for attacking the Northern Water Temple, and just-so-happen to find Aang there as well, I would've believed'em. The first part about "Ooh, I have a strong feeling the Avatar's at the Northern Water Temple" shouldn't have been said at all!I also really hated how all of the water-bending, air-bending, earth-bending, and fire-bending had excessively long movements, resulting in actually very little happening. In the television series, the elemental bending followed the movements of the characters. In the film, each character does a series of long-ass hand gestures, and then a short burst of elemental bending occurs.Now, what do I like about the film? The actress who portrays Katara, Nicola Peltz, actually sounds a lot like Katara from the animated series. Also, Princess Yue (Seychelle Gabriel) is really pretty in the film, and looks a lot like her animated counterpart.'The Last Airbender' isn't fun at all. All of the jokes, joy, and life in the animated series has been left out of the film adaptation. I want sequels to this film only to give Shyamalan a chance at redemption and perhaps have other people write the screenplays for the next ones. Or even better, have a better director reboot the film series.

The Last Airbender

tt0938283

M. Night Shyamalan has been in the movie business for over 15 years. His early films told a piece of his life or childhood, his later films were just...ideas. But when M. Night started watching "Avatar: The Last Airbender" with his daughter, he was intrigued. He decided to stylize the film like the end of Unbreakable and he got some writers of the show to even produce the movie.I have not watched the TV show, but from what I hear, M. Night basically destroyed the original characters, which wouldn't surprise me, I mean, this is M. Night's first adapted movie.I saw an interview where Shyamalan said his movies weren't generally for American viewers anymore, and that he was using elements from different cultures.The movie starts out strong and dimmers down a lot through out and then sort of picks back up. I thought the acting was so-so, certainly not Razzie worthy (even though someone probably will get one). The Razzie's don't care if it's a kid or not apparently. M. Night's writing is shaky and had some bad pacing but it was okay I guess. His direction was okay though, I'll say that.Shyamalan's first non-thriller in over ten years is not a failure.5.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1089

ur20481545

title: The Last Airbender review: M. Night Shyamalan has been in the movie business for over 15 years. His early films told a piece of his life or childhood, his later films were just...ideas. But when M. Night started watching "Avatar: The Last Airbender" with his daughter, he was intrigued. He decided to stylize the film like the end of Unbreakable and he got some writers of the show to even produce the movie.I have not watched the TV show, but from what I hear, M. Night basically destroyed the original characters, which wouldn't surprise me, I mean, this is M. Night's first adapted movie.I saw an interview where Shyamalan said his movies weren't generally for American viewers anymore, and that he was using elements from different cultures.The movie starts out strong and dimmers down a lot through out and then sort of picks back up. I thought the acting was so-so, certainly not Razzie worthy (even though someone probably will get one). The Razzie's don't care if it's a kid or not apparently. M. Night's writing is shaky and had some bad pacing but it was okay I guess. His direction was okay though, I'll say that.Shyamalan's first non-thriller in over ten years is not a failure.5.5/10

Another bad live-action adaptation of a good cartoon

tt0938283

Here we go again: Hollywood makes another lousy movie based on a good animated show, which lacks any single one of the virtues that made the source material so popular in first place.To be honest, I really had big hopes for this movie, mostly because, despite the fact that his movies seem to get worse and worse as time goes by, I still had some bits of faith on M. Night Shyamalan: After all "The Sixth Sense" was great, "Unbreakable" was interesting. But also, the animated show in which this movie was (loosely) based had a great story, with a pretty good character/plot development, with many virtues to exploit.This was a perfect chance for Shyamalan to show that he didn't lost his touch (And also, that he wasn't one trick pony)Also, unlike most of the directors responsible for lame live actions version of cartoons (Such as Tim Hill or Raja Gosnell) Shyamalan seemed to care about the original story and characters in which this movie was inspired.Maybe for that reason, my disappointment was bigger when I finally saw the big mess this movie is: Not only the movie was completely devoid of all the fun of the original series (While the animated series had plenty of serious and epic scenes, it also had lots of comedy, having a good balance of drama, action and humor) but also fails miserably as a big "epic" film, having lots of cheesy scenes and dialogues.Some of them are unintentionally hilarious (Such as the infamous line "We need to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in their beliefs") but sadly, most of the movie is boring, dull and lame, with uninteresting (and poorly made) action scenes, and equally unimpressive special effects (Being only slightly better than horrible films as "Dragonball: Evolution") The performances aren't very good either: Most of them are bland and forgettable, with the main kid characters looking either boring or indifferent to any situation. The Only exception was Dev Patel, which makes an incredibly over the top performance as the Prince Zuko, practically screaming most of his lines.But despite all that, the biggest flaw of this movie is that is unspeakably boring, and despite the absurd stupidity and cheesiness of some the lines and the action scenes, most of this film feels tedious and endless, without any single bit of tension or at least, something that could make the viewers care about the story and the characters.To summarize: M.Night Shyamalan turned "Avatar: The Last Airbender" into a weird combination between "Twilight" and "Dragonball: Evolution", managing to make a movie which is even worse than his previous films such as "The Lady in the Water" "The Happening". And that's saying something.Well, at least the fans will always have good memories about the original show. No matter how bad this movie was, it didn't make me like less "Avatar:The Last Airbender", which always will be remembered as one of the best animated shows ever made, while this movie will be quickly forgotten.0/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1213

ur13538926

title: Another bad live-action adaptation of a good cartoon review: Here we go again: Hollywood makes another lousy movie based on a good animated show, which lacks any single one of the virtues that made the source material so popular in first place.To be honest, I really had big hopes for this movie, mostly because, despite the fact that his movies seem to get worse and worse as time goes by, I still had some bits of faith on M. Night Shyamalan: After all "The Sixth Sense" was great, "Unbreakable" was interesting. But also, the animated show in which this movie was (loosely) based had a great story, with a pretty good character/plot development, with many virtues to exploit.This was a perfect chance for Shyamalan to show that he didn't lost his touch (And also, that he wasn't one trick pony)Also, unlike most of the directors responsible for lame live actions version of cartoons (Such as Tim Hill or Raja Gosnell) Shyamalan seemed to care about the original story and characters in which this movie was inspired.Maybe for that reason, my disappointment was bigger when I finally saw the big mess this movie is: Not only the movie was completely devoid of all the fun of the original series (While the animated series had plenty of serious and epic scenes, it also had lots of comedy, having a good balance of drama, action and humor) but also fails miserably as a big "epic" film, having lots of cheesy scenes and dialogues.Some of them are unintentionally hilarious (Such as the infamous line "We need to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in their beliefs") but sadly, most of the movie is boring, dull and lame, with uninteresting (and poorly made) action scenes, and equally unimpressive special effects (Being only slightly better than horrible films as "Dragonball: Evolution") The performances aren't very good either: Most of them are bland and forgettable, with the main kid characters looking either boring or indifferent to any situation. The Only exception was Dev Patel, which makes an incredibly over the top performance as the Prince Zuko, practically screaming most of his lines.But despite all that, the biggest flaw of this movie is that is unspeakably boring, and despite the absurd stupidity and cheesiness of some the lines and the action scenes, most of this film feels tedious and endless, without any single bit of tension or at least, something that could make the viewers care about the story and the characters.To summarize: M.Night Shyamalan turned "Avatar: The Last Airbender" into a weird combination between "Twilight" and "Dragonball: Evolution", managing to make a movie which is even worse than his previous films such as "The Lady in the Water" "The Happening". And that's saying something.Well, at least the fans will always have good memories about the original show. No matter how bad this movie was, it didn't make me like less "Avatar:The Last Airbender", which always will be remembered as one of the best animated shows ever made, while this movie will be quickly forgotten.0/10

So much potential, but it's sadly squandered

tt0938283

You'll find a lot of scathing reviews of THE LAST AIRBENDER around here. I'd like to give it a fair, level headed review and point out its positives, though I will address its fatal flaws.This COULD have been a better movie. The trailers and commercials were actually rather promising. But in trying to cover an entire season of a popular cartoon show, it ended up being rushed and disjointed. Director M. Night Shyamalan writes a script that plays like ambitious fan fiction that cherry picks some of the seasons most popular & important moments from the season while throwing out pacing and character development.I had hoped that what happened to Peter Jackson would happen to Shyamalan and that making something completely different from his previous works would be just the thing he needed. But I forgot that Jackson put a lot of work and effort into his pre "Lord of the Rings" movies while Shyamalan is the laziest director ever (he's even admitted it in interviews) and that he is a humbler, more grounded director.It isn't entirely Shyamalan's fault. At the last minute, Paramount Studios decided to convert the movie to 3D, which ended up doing more harm than whatever good it could have done, and had several scenes cut that might have helped flesh out the story and add character development.I'll now get to the good parts. It looks really good, with settings and costumes that often recall its source material and really nice cinematography. There's James Newton Howard's sweeping, stirring music score. I liked the bending effects. They're no perfect but I don't always want my SFX to be like in "Lord of the Rings" "The Matrix" or , Heaven help us, "Avatar" because sometimes that's too much to ask. I liked the action scenes. I liked the imperfect but earnest performances by Noah Ringer and Nicola Peltz as heroes Aang and Katara, Dev Patel's anti-hero Zuko later in the movie (though his early scenes leave something to be desired), and Shaun Toub gives the movie's best performance as Uncle Iroh, capturing the spirit of his character perfectly.But the rest of the cast is unintentionally hilarious as they give bad performances like a poorly done high school production of Shaekespeare. In particular, Jackson Rathbone is as stiff and dull as he is in the "Twilight" movies (they may as well call his character "Jasper"). Cliff Curtis is just silly as Fire Lord Ozai (both in appearance and performance). And Aasif Mandvi gives a strange performance as Commander Zhao, though the fact that the character was rewritten from being ruthless, fierce, and intimidating to being a gloating, weak, underhanded goon doesn't help. The situation is even worse thanks to the hollow, exaggerated dialogue the actors are forced to say that even hurts the better performances.The film is also a rushed sense of pace with events happening so quickly we don't get a chance to catch our breath and exposition repeatedly (and over dramatically) told to us to help us keep up. When characters have to talk about plot points every ten minutes or so, that's a clear sign you have a script that's too busy. And to top it all off the movie is poorly edited, going from place to place in its scenes so fast and sudden some viewers might get headaches.Paramount is hoping to make "The Last Airbender" into a trilogy, with each entry based on a season/storyline from the cartoon. The ending certainly hints at things to come. But the negative reaction and possible box office failure may stop that. If there is a sequel, they better get another director, and if they don't they really need to get a different writer. Because the first entry had a lot of potential...but it was hopelessly mired by uneven acting, awful dialogue, a terrible sense of pacing and crappy editing that may kill the trilogy before it can really start.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-231

ur3358681

title: So much potential, but it's sadly squandered review: You'll find a lot of scathing reviews of THE LAST AIRBENDER around here. I'd like to give it a fair, level headed review and point out its positives, though I will address its fatal flaws.This COULD have been a better movie. The trailers and commercials were actually rather promising. But in trying to cover an entire season of a popular cartoon show, it ended up being rushed and disjointed. Director M. Night Shyamalan writes a script that plays like ambitious fan fiction that cherry picks some of the seasons most popular & important moments from the season while throwing out pacing and character development.I had hoped that what happened to Peter Jackson would happen to Shyamalan and that making something completely different from his previous works would be just the thing he needed. But I forgot that Jackson put a lot of work and effort into his pre "Lord of the Rings" movies while Shyamalan is the laziest director ever (he's even admitted it in interviews) and that he is a humbler, more grounded director.It isn't entirely Shyamalan's fault. At the last minute, Paramount Studios decided to convert the movie to 3D, which ended up doing more harm than whatever good it could have done, and had several scenes cut that might have helped flesh out the story and add character development.I'll now get to the good parts. It looks really good, with settings and costumes that often recall its source material and really nice cinematography. There's James Newton Howard's sweeping, stirring music score. I liked the bending effects. They're no perfect but I don't always want my SFX to be like in "Lord of the Rings" "The Matrix" or , Heaven help us, "Avatar" because sometimes that's too much to ask. I liked the action scenes. I liked the imperfect but earnest performances by Noah Ringer and Nicola Peltz as heroes Aang and Katara, Dev Patel's anti-hero Zuko later in the movie (though his early scenes leave something to be desired), and Shaun Toub gives the movie's best performance as Uncle Iroh, capturing the spirit of his character perfectly.But the rest of the cast is unintentionally hilarious as they give bad performances like a poorly done high school production of Shaekespeare. In particular, Jackson Rathbone is as stiff and dull as he is in the "Twilight" movies (they may as well call his character "Jasper"). Cliff Curtis is just silly as Fire Lord Ozai (both in appearance and performance). And Aasif Mandvi gives a strange performance as Commander Zhao, though the fact that the character was rewritten from being ruthless, fierce, and intimidating to being a gloating, weak, underhanded goon doesn't help. The situation is even worse thanks to the hollow, exaggerated dialogue the actors are forced to say that even hurts the better performances.The film is also a rushed sense of pace with events happening so quickly we don't get a chance to catch our breath and exposition repeatedly (and over dramatically) told to us to help us keep up. When characters have to talk about plot points every ten minutes or so, that's a clear sign you have a script that's too busy. And to top it all off the movie is poorly edited, going from place to place in its scenes so fast and sudden some viewers might get headaches.Paramount is hoping to make "The Last Airbender" into a trilogy, with each entry based on a season/storyline from the cartoon. The ending certainly hints at things to come. But the negative reaction and possible box office failure may stop that. If there is a sequel, they better get another director, and if they don't they really need to get a different writer. Because the first entry had a lot of potential...but it was hopelessly mired by uneven acting, awful dialogue, a terrible sense of pacing and crappy editing that may kill the trilogy before it can really start.

Worst piece of movie making I've ever seen

tt0938283

Sometimes I think the people who make movies forget why people come to the movies. It's not for the special effects, but it's generally standard now for movies to have them. Sometimes it's for an actor or actress we're in love with and want to see. Sometimes it's just for the popcorn and a place to go on the weekend. But the biggest reason that people go to the movies is to see a GOOD STORY. M. Night Shyalaman has only told one good story in his film making career-The Sixth Sense and since that time he could tell a good story if one hit him on the head, like a rock thrown by a earth bender. The Avatar cartoon is one of the greatest pieces of storytelling in a while and I knew that this guy was going to mess it up and he did. It was all wrong from beginning to end. He took random pieces of the cartoon and put them together with no concern about their coherence. He picked his cast also with the same lack of concern. He took a story about so many things and condensed it into a child's endless narration and more repetitive non information than I have every witnessed in a film. Shame on you Shyalaman. I wish I could give it a zero.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-481

ur1062771

title: Worst piece of movie making I've ever seen review: Sometimes I think the people who make movies forget why people come to the movies. It's not for the special effects, but it's generally standard now for movies to have them. Sometimes it's for an actor or actress we're in love with and want to see. Sometimes it's just for the popcorn and a place to go on the weekend. But the biggest reason that people go to the movies is to see a GOOD STORY. M. Night Shyalaman has only told one good story in his film making career-The Sixth Sense and since that time he could tell a good story if one hit him on the head, like a rock thrown by a earth bender. The Avatar cartoon is one of the greatest pieces of storytelling in a while and I knew that this guy was going to mess it up and he did. It was all wrong from beginning to end. He took random pieces of the cartoon and put them together with no concern about their coherence. He picked his cast also with the same lack of concern. He took a story about so many things and condensed it into a child's endless narration and more repetitive non information than I have every witnessed in a film. Shame on you Shyalaman. I wish I could give it a zero.

OK movie but it is still shame

tt0938283

Just a bit of computerized effects,nice theme and 3D technique and you have great promotion and guaranteed big gross for opening weekend . This is case with this kind of movie . When you expect something so good from this kind of movie . The Last Airbender movie has all qualities for great promotion . We still can't be satisfied because when you come to cinema and put your 3D glasses and start watching movie I guess that there is coming out big PROBLEM-THE QUALITY . OK,maybe we couldn't expect something great from this kind of movie . It is based on cartoons it doesn't seem so . It is set as some kind of little child's work . Jumbled,made out from nowhere and still frivolous . Soundtrack was just like choice of little child . It wasn't enjoyable . Prototype of whole movie is very bad because of movie is imagined as just some introducing of secrets . There is not something what can we discover through movie . All is set on table and you have just to read it . You don't have even to make some efforts to read some hidden tricks . It is still downfall of imagination by director M.Night Shyamalan . Director with greatest oscillations made some effective crap and he should fell shame because he had one of greatest stories . This story about 4 powerful nations,with their pluses and minuses,terrorized,last of his kind,long war and runaways . Do you have any idea that this story could interest adults which wants fantasy runaway and children which enjoy in great effective war . Director still can be happy because because in fight scenes I enjoyed because they are still have some excitements . Miserable performances,especially from star Dev Patel . It was so bad that it was like their rest of acting . Children still can stuck for this movie because it is interesting but still less imagination . I gave it 5 which is bad mark . But , still good because some summer craps deserved worse like Eclipse or something else . My rating can be described very easily . 1-because of great promotion,2-because of attracting theme,3-story which has potential,4-visual effects,5-costume selection(armies were looking very powerful,especially fire nation) Still hope to see maybe sequel . Hope for better one .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-823

ur22879123

title: OK movie but it is still shame review: Just a bit of computerized effects,nice theme and 3D technique and you have great promotion and guaranteed big gross for opening weekend . This is case with this kind of movie . When you expect something so good from this kind of movie . The Last Airbender movie has all qualities for great promotion . We still can't be satisfied because when you come to cinema and put your 3D glasses and start watching movie I guess that there is coming out big PROBLEM-THE QUALITY . OK,maybe we couldn't expect something great from this kind of movie . It is based on cartoons it doesn't seem so . It is set as some kind of little child's work . Jumbled,made out from nowhere and still frivolous . Soundtrack was just like choice of little child . It wasn't enjoyable . Prototype of whole movie is very bad because of movie is imagined as just some introducing of secrets . There is not something what can we discover through movie . All is set on table and you have just to read it . You don't have even to make some efforts to read some hidden tricks . It is still downfall of imagination by director M.Night Shyamalan . Director with greatest oscillations made some effective crap and he should fell shame because he had one of greatest stories . This story about 4 powerful nations,with their pluses and minuses,terrorized,last of his kind,long war and runaways . Do you have any idea that this story could interest adults which wants fantasy runaway and children which enjoy in great effective war . Director still can be happy because because in fight scenes I enjoyed because they are still have some excitements . Miserable performances,especially from star Dev Patel . It was so bad that it was like their rest of acting . Children still can stuck for this movie because it is interesting but still less imagination . I gave it 5 which is bad mark . But , still good because some summer craps deserved worse like Eclipse or something else . My rating can be described very easily . 1-because of great promotion,2-because of attracting theme,3-story which has potential,4-visual effects,5-costume selection(armies were looking very powerful,especially fire nation) Still hope to see maybe sequel . Hope for better one .

Easily the worst movie of the year.

tt0938283

Director M. Night Shamylan unfortunately returns with the easily Razzie contender, The Last airbender,based on a cartoon series. The Last airbender has no good quality. I hated every second. It's an agonizing experience in which you suffer for an hour and forty minutes until then end in which you find out a terrible truth: There is going to be a sequel.Newcomer Noah Ringer(I hope he doesn't come back) plays Aang. Aang is a bald kid with an arrow on his head who, in this magical world of a name that I don't know the name of, can control all the elements(earth, air, water, and fire). This is a bad thing for some reason. So the fire nation, mainly Prince Zuko(Dev Patel ?) try to track him down, while Aang and his new friends flee.The special effects blow. The acting is atrocious. I mean a little effort would've been nice. I laughed more than I was dazzled. I was bored too. The movie is way too cheesy, and no fun what so ever. What is supposed to be fun is... boring.This movie is incredibly slow. There are some things that aren't explained enough. My main problem with it is the acting. The dialogue. Something. Could something have worked about this movie? Sure, maybe something might have. But nothing does.M Night Shamylan lost his touch after Signs. Since then he's been on an on going losing streak, from The Village, to Lady in the water, to The Happening, and now when he tries not to do scary movies with twists, he makes easily the worst film of his career. I hated this movie. I couldn't wait for it to be over. Once it finishes you find out that the movie is over, but the story isn't. That is the worst thing about this movie. Next to the acting.I was going to say that I was being too harsh on this movie. But I think i'm being too kind. Maybe a zero out of four is a little extreme. But you'd have to suffer through it to understand. From it's terrible acting to it's cheap special effects , boring story, and god awful script, I really hope The Last airbender is the last.F

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1048

ur22881716

title: Easily the worst movie of the year. review: Director M. Night Shamylan unfortunately returns with the easily Razzie contender, The Last airbender,based on a cartoon series. The Last airbender has no good quality. I hated every second. It's an agonizing experience in which you suffer for an hour and forty minutes until then end in which you find out a terrible truth: There is going to be a sequel.Newcomer Noah Ringer(I hope he doesn't come back) plays Aang. Aang is a bald kid with an arrow on his head who, in this magical world of a name that I don't know the name of, can control all the elements(earth, air, water, and fire). This is a bad thing for some reason. So the fire nation, mainly Prince Zuko(Dev Patel ?) try to track him down, while Aang and his new friends flee.The special effects blow. The acting is atrocious. I mean a little effort would've been nice. I laughed more than I was dazzled. I was bored too. The movie is way too cheesy, and no fun what so ever. What is supposed to be fun is... boring.This movie is incredibly slow. There are some things that aren't explained enough. My main problem with it is the acting. The dialogue. Something. Could something have worked about this movie? Sure, maybe something might have. But nothing does.M Night Shamylan lost his touch after Signs. Since then he's been on an on going losing streak, from The Village, to Lady in the water, to The Happening, and now when he tries not to do scary movies with twists, he makes easily the worst film of his career. I hated this movie. I couldn't wait for it to be over. Once it finishes you find out that the movie is over, but the story isn't. That is the worst thing about this movie. Next to the acting.I was going to say that I was being too harsh on this movie. But I think i'm being too kind. Maybe a zero out of four is a little extreme. But you'd have to suffer through it to understand. From it's terrible acting to it's cheap special effects , boring story, and god awful script, I really hope The Last airbender is the last.F

I always knew you would be a great bender

tt0938283

And its lines like that that makes The Last Airbender unintentionally funny to British audiences: I admit it's juvenile because bender is a schoolboy way to describe someone who is gay but you will take anything you can get with a film like this.Based on a popular animated series, The Last Airbender is the most expensive film made so far by Nickelodeon Movies. This film attempts to put 22 episodes into one film and it ended up annoying fans a lot.The Last Airbender is set in a fantasy where some people are able to control the elements, Earth, Water, Fire and Air. One person at one time is called the Avatar and he is able to control all the elements makes sure there is peace and balance in the world. He is reincarnated every time. But the Avatar has been missing for 100 years and during his time of absence the Fire Nation has risen. In the Southern Water Tribe Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) found the Avatar, Aang (Noah Ringer) in a Ice Bubble and free him. On the way the three youngsters team up, knowing Aang is the only person who could stop the Fire Nation and on the way to find the great Waterbender masters start a rebellion. But Aang is also being chased by a exiled prince, Zuko (Dev Patel) who wants to capture him to regain his honour and a sadistic Fire Nation commander, Admiral Zhao (Aasif Mandvi).The Last Airbender was the bigger winner/loser at the Razzies in 2011 and it was deserves despite some stiff company. For some weird reason Paramount allowed M. Night Shyamalan to write, direct and produce this film, despite making two flops in a row and give him a $150 Million budget to play with. Why they did this I do not know, I assume that the producer still thought Shyamalan was the wonderkid who made The Sixth Sense or simply Shyamlan has amazing abilities to talk people into doing anything. I hope studios realise that Shyamlan needs to go back to basics, do lower budget films and make sure he does not have control over production or the script. The dialogue is awful and much of the film is rushed, for the obvious reason that Shyamlan is trying to condense a long show into 90 minutes. Added to that is some of the most wooden acting in a fantasy film: Ringer was only cast because he knew tae-kwon-do, but he could not actor at all, compare him to someone like Chloe Moretz and Saoirse Ronan who are professional child actors and learned how to do action scenes. Shyamlan said he cast Peltz because she gave the best audition by a child actor since Haley Joel Osment: standards must be slipping because she was terrible throughout. She has a pretty face but that is no substitute for acting ability and she had no chemistry whatsoever with any of the characters. Rathbone too has similar problems, a wooden delivery and a lack of a connection with the other characters. Even Patel was struggling and he was coming off the back of a Slumdog Millionaire: he was just trying to be as intense as possible. He has admitted that he thought the script was weak but Shyamlan talked him into taking the role and his only options was comic sidekick in Hollywood films. I'm surprise he could kept a straight face whilst filming. Mandvi was the best performer because his character was a real dick, making snay comments at every opportunity.Shyamalan can not direct an action scene: I have often complain about films using shaky cam and over-cutting, but Shyamalan has the opposite problem, he does not when to cut and going for long shots with no focus at all. If you want to see good steady-cam shots, look at Children of Men or Warrior King. The fight choreography is terrible, Shyamalan claims he always wanted to make a material arts film, but he obviously did not see what makes a good material arts film. Added to that when characters are bending they have to do stupid dance moves; I can understand that a blocking motion would lead to Earth coming up from the ground, but how does a dance act make the elements move? Why not look at something like Magneto from X-Men who moves metal by simple movements. The other problem of the action scenes is most of the time they are too dark to see and makes it hard to follow what's going on.There are some pluses on the technical side of things, James Newton Howard provides an excellent score, the art-direction and costumes are well done and some of the special effects were okay. Also the character of Uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) is complex because is a good commander, a caring uncle and father-figure, a loyal general but has a scene of honour, I am sure he was sure he was developed more in the cartoon.I have not seen the cartoon, but I am sure it is a deeper, more complex series and what I read I have only heard good things. I did catch the end of an episode once and I thought it had a good, fast flowing animation style. And I can understand fans' fury about changing the characters races, it something that should never be done unless there is a real good artist reason.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1217

ur17571044

title: I always knew you would be a great bender review: And its lines like that that makes The Last Airbender unintentionally funny to British audiences: I admit it's juvenile because bender is a schoolboy way to describe someone who is gay but you will take anything you can get with a film like this.Based on a popular animated series, The Last Airbender is the most expensive film made so far by Nickelodeon Movies. This film attempts to put 22 episodes into one film and it ended up annoying fans a lot.The Last Airbender is set in a fantasy where some people are able to control the elements, Earth, Water, Fire and Air. One person at one time is called the Avatar and he is able to control all the elements makes sure there is peace and balance in the world. He is reincarnated every time. But the Avatar has been missing for 100 years and during his time of absence the Fire Nation has risen. In the Southern Water Tribe Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) found the Avatar, Aang (Noah Ringer) in a Ice Bubble and free him. On the way the three youngsters team up, knowing Aang is the only person who could stop the Fire Nation and on the way to find the great Waterbender masters start a rebellion. But Aang is also being chased by a exiled prince, Zuko (Dev Patel) who wants to capture him to regain his honour and a sadistic Fire Nation commander, Admiral Zhao (Aasif Mandvi).The Last Airbender was the bigger winner/loser at the Razzies in 2011 and it was deserves despite some stiff company. For some weird reason Paramount allowed M. Night Shyamalan to write, direct and produce this film, despite making two flops in a row and give him a $150 Million budget to play with. Why they did this I do not know, I assume that the producer still thought Shyamalan was the wonderkid who made The Sixth Sense or simply Shyamlan has amazing abilities to talk people into doing anything. I hope studios realise that Shyamlan needs to go back to basics, do lower budget films and make sure he does not have control over production or the script. The dialogue is awful and much of the film is rushed, for the obvious reason that Shyamlan is trying to condense a long show into 90 minutes. Added to that is some of the most wooden acting in a fantasy film: Ringer was only cast because he knew tae-kwon-do, but he could not actor at all, compare him to someone like Chloe Moretz and Saoirse Ronan who are professional child actors and learned how to do action scenes. Shyamlan said he cast Peltz because she gave the best audition by a child actor since Haley Joel Osment: standards must be slipping because she was terrible throughout. She has a pretty face but that is no substitute for acting ability and she had no chemistry whatsoever with any of the characters. Rathbone too has similar problems, a wooden delivery and a lack of a connection with the other characters. Even Patel was struggling and he was coming off the back of a Slumdog Millionaire: he was just trying to be as intense as possible. He has admitted that he thought the script was weak but Shyamlan talked him into taking the role and his only options was comic sidekick in Hollywood films. I'm surprise he could kept a straight face whilst filming. Mandvi was the best performer because his character was a real dick, making snay comments at every opportunity.Shyamalan can not direct an action scene: I have often complain about films using shaky cam and over-cutting, but Shyamalan has the opposite problem, he does not when to cut and going for long shots with no focus at all. If you want to see good steady-cam shots, look at Children of Men or Warrior King. The fight choreography is terrible, Shyamalan claims he always wanted to make a material arts film, but he obviously did not see what makes a good material arts film. Added to that when characters are bending they have to do stupid dance moves; I can understand that a blocking motion would lead to Earth coming up from the ground, but how does a dance act make the elements move? Why not look at something like Magneto from X-Men who moves metal by simple movements. The other problem of the action scenes is most of the time they are too dark to see and makes it hard to follow what's going on.There are some pluses on the technical side of things, James Newton Howard provides an excellent score, the art-direction and costumes are well done and some of the special effects were okay. Also the character of Uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) is complex because is a good commander, a caring uncle and father-figure, a loyal general but has a scene of honour, I am sure he was sure he was developed more in the cartoon.I have not seen the cartoon, but I am sure it is a deeper, more complex series and what I read I have only heard good things. I did catch the end of an episode once and I thought it had a good, fast flowing animation style. And I can understand fans' fury about changing the characters races, it something that should never be done unless there is a real good artist reason.

What it loses in acting and plot feebly tries to make up in the technical aspects.

tt0938283

Ever since his master hit "Signs" M. Night Shyamalan has not made an excellent film. "The Village," "Lady in the Water," and "The Happening" all had potentials to be great films, but they all fell short at some degree or another. I had faith that Shyamalan would get his creative streak back with "The Last Airbender" but like with the previous films I have listed, it adds to the bad streak.Unlike most people, I do not absolutely loathe this film. It has some great concepts to it, such as Andrew Lesnie's amazing cinematography, fairly decent CGI and set design, and James Newton Howard's mesmerizing score (perhaps he'll finely get his Oscar—probably not). Needless to say, the film does well on the technical/filmmaking aspects, but it loses its power in the most important parts, story and acting.I agree with Roger Ebert's remark in that the film seems to wander and has no solid structure. In my opinion, the film tells little yet it tries to squeeze as much as it can in 100 minutes. Imagine if the "Lord of the Rings" films were only 100 minutes a movie. They would've been awful. A film that is based on a long story (in this case the first season of Nickelodeon's hit cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender"), it makes the film's story jumbled, hard to follow and overall dissatisfying. I never saw the animated television show, so I can't make any plot comparisons. What bugged me most though was the lack of character development. Characters' motives aren't explained, merely implied on why they do the things they do. This is very significant in Dev Patel's character, Prince Zuko. He starts off bad, and then becomes good, then bad again, and once again good. His character can't make up his mind. This may add some ambivalence to his character but there's no strong motivating force shown that drives these actions. Dev is a great actor, but his character needed more explaining and breathing room—as did all the actors in this film. The only character we seem to understand his Aang (for some reason his name is pronounced "uhn"). The child actor didn't do a bad job in the role, but it could've been of the same caliber as the kids in "Slumdog Millionaire". On a side note, half the actors in this movie tried to put in some effort while the rest were just reading a script.In conclusion, this film could've been something great—perhaps in the same range as "The Lord of the Rings" films. What it loses in acting and plot feebly tries to make up in the technical aspects. What seems to keep this film from being a total disaster is James Newton Howard's epic score. If he used this score for another movie, he would perhaps get the recognition he so desperately deserves. On a final side note, Shyamalan needs to get some better ideas for films—for his luck is almost out. 1.5 out of 4

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-836

ur3153189

title: What it loses in acting and plot feebly tries to make up in the technical aspects. review: Ever since his master hit "Signs" M. Night Shyamalan has not made an excellent film. "The Village," "Lady in the Water," and "The Happening" all had potentials to be great films, but they all fell short at some degree or another. I had faith that Shyamalan would get his creative streak back with "The Last Airbender" but like with the previous films I have listed, it adds to the bad streak.Unlike most people, I do not absolutely loathe this film. It has some great concepts to it, such as Andrew Lesnie's amazing cinematography, fairly decent CGI and set design, and James Newton Howard's mesmerizing score (perhaps he'll finely get his Oscar—probably not). Needless to say, the film does well on the technical/filmmaking aspects, but it loses its power in the most important parts, story and acting.I agree with Roger Ebert's remark in that the film seems to wander and has no solid structure. In my opinion, the film tells little yet it tries to squeeze as much as it can in 100 minutes. Imagine if the "Lord of the Rings" films were only 100 minutes a movie. They would've been awful. A film that is based on a long story (in this case the first season of Nickelodeon's hit cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender"), it makes the film's story jumbled, hard to follow and overall dissatisfying. I never saw the animated television show, so I can't make any plot comparisons. What bugged me most though was the lack of character development. Characters' motives aren't explained, merely implied on why they do the things they do. This is very significant in Dev Patel's character, Prince Zuko. He starts off bad, and then becomes good, then bad again, and once again good. His character can't make up his mind. This may add some ambivalence to his character but there's no strong motivating force shown that drives these actions. Dev is a great actor, but his character needed more explaining and breathing room—as did all the actors in this film. The only character we seem to understand his Aang (for some reason his name is pronounced "uhn"). The child actor didn't do a bad job in the role, but it could've been of the same caliber as the kids in "Slumdog Millionaire". On a side note, half the actors in this movie tried to put in some effort while the rest were just reading a script.In conclusion, this film could've been something great—perhaps in the same range as "The Lord of the Rings" films. What it loses in acting and plot feebly tries to make up in the technical aspects. What seems to keep this film from being a total disaster is James Newton Howard's epic score. If he used this score for another movie, he would perhaps get the recognition he so desperately deserves. On a final side note, Shyamalan needs to get some better ideas for films—for his luck is almost out. 1.5 out of 4

2010: Not as bad as everyone is saying. 2014: Yes, as bad as everyone is saying.

tt0938283

FROM 2010THE LAST AIRBENDER takes place in a world where there are four tribes: Water, Earth, Fire, and Air. As Katara explains, the tribes once lived in harmony and peace, until the Fire Nation decided to conquer all. The Nations' only hope lies in someone known as the Avatar, one who can bend all the elements, and when the world needed him most, he vanished. A thousand years pass, turmoil has settled between the nations. The Air Nomads are gone. Two siblings, Sokka(Rathbone) and Katara(Peltz) discover the latest reincarnation of the Avatar: Aang(Ringer), who ran away from his tribe when he was needed, and became encased in a frozen prison. After being thawed, Sokka and Katara bring him back to the Water tribe, where they learn who he really is. All the while, Prince Zuko(Patel) is on a mission to capture the Avatar and bring him to his father, Fire Lord Ozai(Curtis), in order to regain his honor. But Sokka and Katara aren't willing to adhere to Zuko's request, so they decide to help Aang master all the elements. You may or may not be surprised to here me say this, but I liked it. Yes, Shyamalan did change somethings, and yes he may have taken a misstep in changing pronunciation, but what people have to remember is this: it's a movie. It's not a TV show. There are things you have to change in order for it to work as a film. You have to be able to whittle it all down to something that works as a film, while keeping all the major major moments of the show itself, and Shyamalan does that. The actors did a good job as well. Dev Patel was marvelous as Prince Zuko. He really captured his essence. Noah Ringer was really good as Aang, although I would've liked to have seen him to some more comedic stuff. Shyamalan didn't have to take it all so seriously. The penguin-sledding scene would've gotten big laughs. Oh well, easy come easy go. Jackson Rathbone was really good as Sokka. He actually made me cry at one point during his scene with Princess Yue(Gabriel). That was really the emotional part of the film. It was very emotional in the show, but Shyamalan tends to turn the emotions up a notch, causing tears to be shed. He did it with THE SIXTH SENSE, he did it with SIGNS, he even did it with LADY IN THE WATER, and he did it with THE LAST AIRBENDER. Nicola Peltz is the only gal who can play Katara. She got Katara's delivery, her emotions, everything. I was thoroughly impressed. But I was most impressed with Aasif Mandvi as Commander Zhao. That was a surprise, and a pleasant one. He has proved he can do serious as well as comedy. The writing was good too. Shyamalan did a good job of sticking to the voices of the writers of the TV show, as well as provide some of his own spin. However, the movie did jump around a lot, and that was a little unsettling for me, but it didn't stop my enjoyment of the film. The visual effects were spectacular. I got chills from watching them. They were very good. ILM did a great job of matching the TV show in that area. Appa was probably my favorite effect. He made me smile every time he was on screen. But still, special effects can't cover story, but the story's good, so the visual effects are just as good too. You have to really know the show in order to get a lot of what's in the film, which helps if you've watched the show. If someone didn't, then there would be one of two reactions: They didn't get it, or they liked it enough as a film but would later on be disappointed when they watched the show for themselves. If you like M. Night Shyamalan, there's a good chance you'll either like this or you won't. I can't really give any guarantees. If you liked the TV show, and are a purist, you probably won't like this film. However, if you liked the show, but are able to enjoy the adaptation as a film, then you will like this film as I did. I'd like to see it again if I have the chance. As for Shyamalan, he gets a tip of the hat from me for trying something different. He did a good job of adapting another's work. I can't wait for the sequel.NOW IN 2014: Okay, here's the deal. Now that I've studied screen writing, I'm actually seeing the glaring flaws in this movie. The biggest one being he compressed a whole season into one movie. That's not how you do it, because your focus switches. Act I belonged to Katara, The midpoint belonged to Zuko, and Act III belonged to Aang, the movie's protagonist. What? What the hell is that? He should've just made the movie its own thing, but he didn't. And he failed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-670

ur19243710

title: 2010: Not as bad as everyone is saying. 2014: Yes, as bad as everyone is saying. review: FROM 2010THE LAST AIRBENDER takes place in a world where there are four tribes: Water, Earth, Fire, and Air. As Katara explains, the tribes once lived in harmony and peace, until the Fire Nation decided to conquer all. The Nations' only hope lies in someone known as the Avatar, one who can bend all the elements, and when the world needed him most, he vanished. A thousand years pass, turmoil has settled between the nations. The Air Nomads are gone. Two siblings, Sokka(Rathbone) and Katara(Peltz) discover the latest reincarnation of the Avatar: Aang(Ringer), who ran away from his tribe when he was needed, and became encased in a frozen prison. After being thawed, Sokka and Katara bring him back to the Water tribe, where they learn who he really is. All the while, Prince Zuko(Patel) is on a mission to capture the Avatar and bring him to his father, Fire Lord Ozai(Curtis), in order to regain his honor. But Sokka and Katara aren't willing to adhere to Zuko's request, so they decide to help Aang master all the elements. You may or may not be surprised to here me say this, but I liked it. Yes, Shyamalan did change somethings, and yes he may have taken a misstep in changing pronunciation, but what people have to remember is this: it's a movie. It's not a TV show. There are things you have to change in order for it to work as a film. You have to be able to whittle it all down to something that works as a film, while keeping all the major major moments of the show itself, and Shyamalan does that. The actors did a good job as well. Dev Patel was marvelous as Prince Zuko. He really captured his essence. Noah Ringer was really good as Aang, although I would've liked to have seen him to some more comedic stuff. Shyamalan didn't have to take it all so seriously. The penguin-sledding scene would've gotten big laughs. Oh well, easy come easy go. Jackson Rathbone was really good as Sokka. He actually made me cry at one point during his scene with Princess Yue(Gabriel). That was really the emotional part of the film. It was very emotional in the show, but Shyamalan tends to turn the emotions up a notch, causing tears to be shed. He did it with THE SIXTH SENSE, he did it with SIGNS, he even did it with LADY IN THE WATER, and he did it with THE LAST AIRBENDER. Nicola Peltz is the only gal who can play Katara. She got Katara's delivery, her emotions, everything. I was thoroughly impressed. But I was most impressed with Aasif Mandvi as Commander Zhao. That was a surprise, and a pleasant one. He has proved he can do serious as well as comedy. The writing was good too. Shyamalan did a good job of sticking to the voices of the writers of the TV show, as well as provide some of his own spin. However, the movie did jump around a lot, and that was a little unsettling for me, but it didn't stop my enjoyment of the film. The visual effects were spectacular. I got chills from watching them. They were very good. ILM did a great job of matching the TV show in that area. Appa was probably my favorite effect. He made me smile every time he was on screen. But still, special effects can't cover story, but the story's good, so the visual effects are just as good too. You have to really know the show in order to get a lot of what's in the film, which helps if you've watched the show. If someone didn't, then there would be one of two reactions: They didn't get it, or they liked it enough as a film but would later on be disappointed when they watched the show for themselves. If you like M. Night Shyamalan, there's a good chance you'll either like this or you won't. I can't really give any guarantees. If you liked the TV show, and are a purist, you probably won't like this film. However, if you liked the show, but are able to enjoy the adaptation as a film, then you will like this film as I did. I'd like to see it again if I have the chance. As for Shyamalan, he gets a tip of the hat from me for trying something different. He did a good job of adapting another's work. I can't wait for the sequel.NOW IN 2014: Okay, here's the deal. Now that I've studied screen writing, I'm actually seeing the glaring flaws in this movie. The biggest one being he compressed a whole season into one movie. That's not how you do it, because your focus switches. Act I belonged to Katara, The midpoint belonged to Zuko, and Act III belonged to Aang, the movie's protagonist. What? What the hell is that? He should've just made the movie its own thing, but he didn't. And he failed.

Real Life Saw! This movie is a torture!

tt0938283

Did Shyamalan even see the series? I find it kind of sad and unbelievable that a guy that wrote The Sixts Sense and Unbreakable wrote something as bad as this. I have a little cousin, he's nine, i'm pretty sure that he would write something better than this.----------Not only that it's completely different from the series, even the most of the cast is white, but it sucks in every single way. I haven't seen so much philosophy while reading Shakespeare, an i read all from Shakespeare.----------- Acting is just terrible. Imagine a hundred Keanu Reeves's in one movie. Everything is wooden. One of the worst acted movies in the movie history. Especially considering the fact that it costed 150.000.000 dollars to make it. Seriously, my mom would be better as Katara and my friend that weights 300 pounds would be better as Aang or Sokka. Or even Zuko. I'm pretty sure that Dev Patel has flushed his career down the toilet with this movie. That is, if he even had one. ------------ Nicola Peltz even had the face for Katara, considering she's white, but her acting is amazingly bad! Don't get me wrong, i'm not racist or something. I'm white too. But if someone is supposed to be white than you can't put a black man to play him. Or the other way around. And if someone is supposed to be Asian than you can't put a white man to play him. It's that simple. Imagine Gandhi being played by Arnold Schwarzenegger and you'll get the point. However, i think that Nicola Peltz has a memorable appearance and that if she'd take a lot of acting classes, she could do well in the future.------------- The movie starts way to literal. Kid's write better than this. You have those 'Braveheart ending' moments going for like ten times in the first thirty minutes. Once again, it really seems unreal that a man who wrote The Sixth Sense wrote this! ------------- I guess the only thing good about the movie are visuals. And even those could have been better. At least with creativity. I'm not sure about the music, i didn't pay attention because i was being murdered by stupidity at the time. -------------- Shyamalan, it's about time for you to give up movies. Turn to music or something. If Gaga can do it than so can you! You ruined your own very well started career with movies like Lady In The Water. This was just the final strike. Stop making movies. Or at least not on your own material anymore. Buy scripts instead of writing them. That way you might stand a chance to be respected once again.--------------- People, don't see this movie. Don't even let your kids see it. It's too childish for them too. Unless they're less than six months old!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1047

ur19275800

title: Real Life Saw! This movie is a torture! review: Did Shyamalan even see the series? I find it kind of sad and unbelievable that a guy that wrote The Sixts Sense and Unbreakable wrote something as bad as this. I have a little cousin, he's nine, i'm pretty sure that he would write something better than this.----------Not only that it's completely different from the series, even the most of the cast is white, but it sucks in every single way. I haven't seen so much philosophy while reading Shakespeare, an i read all from Shakespeare.----------- Acting is just terrible. Imagine a hundred Keanu Reeves's in one movie. Everything is wooden. One of the worst acted movies in the movie history. Especially considering the fact that it costed 150.000.000 dollars to make it. Seriously, my mom would be better as Katara and my friend that weights 300 pounds would be better as Aang or Sokka. Or even Zuko. I'm pretty sure that Dev Patel has flushed his career down the toilet with this movie. That is, if he even had one. ------------ Nicola Peltz even had the face for Katara, considering she's white, but her acting is amazingly bad! Don't get me wrong, i'm not racist or something. I'm white too. But if someone is supposed to be white than you can't put a black man to play him. Or the other way around. And if someone is supposed to be Asian than you can't put a white man to play him. It's that simple. Imagine Gandhi being played by Arnold Schwarzenegger and you'll get the point. However, i think that Nicola Peltz has a memorable appearance and that if she'd take a lot of acting classes, she could do well in the future.------------- The movie starts way to literal. Kid's write better than this. You have those 'Braveheart ending' moments going for like ten times in the first thirty minutes. Once again, it really seems unreal that a man who wrote The Sixth Sense wrote this! ------------- I guess the only thing good about the movie are visuals. And even those could have been better. At least with creativity. I'm not sure about the music, i didn't pay attention because i was being murdered by stupidity at the time. -------------- Shyamalan, it's about time for you to give up movies. Turn to music or something. If Gaga can do it than so can you! You ruined your own very well started career with movies like Lady In The Water. This was just the final strike. Stop making movies. Or at least not on your own material anymore. Buy scripts instead of writing them. That way you might stand a chance to be respected once again.--------------- People, don't see this movie. Don't even let your kids see it. It's too childish for them too. Unless they're less than six months old!

Could've been a lot better.

tt0938283

First of all, let me start off by saying that, despite the horrible reviews this film is getting, this is NOT the worst movie you'll ever see. It's not great, but it's not the second-coming-of-Ed-Wood that some people are making it out to be. Much of the hatred, I find, stems either from the anti-casters (who take issue with there not being more Asian actors in the film, which was mostly a non-issue for me), or from fans of the show who didn't like this change or that change, or people who aren't familiar with the show and to whom the plot seems silly. Not to mention the Shyamalan detractors, who are likely to subtract a few stars from their rating of a film if his name is over the title.But, to sum up, yes, the movie was definitely a disappointment. First, the pacing is all off. It's way too rushed, especially early on. I don't know, maybe Paramount took a pair of scissors to it, not trusting the material or the audience, but it's definitely rushed. Generally, the casting was okay to me. Noah Ringer's acting was a tad awkward in places, but he did okay, considering he had no previous acting experience. He manages to portray Aang pretty accurately, and his martial arts skills are incredible. Dev Patel is one of the highlights of the film as Zuko. Jackson Rathbone did well as Sokka, but I was less impressed by Nicola Peltz as Katara. Most of the older actors did well, though the guy who played Zhao was a tad annoying sometimes (maybe he was meant to be).One of the biggest problems I had was with how the characters were portrayed. Especially Katara and Sokka. In the show, Katara was a formidable fighter in her own right, prone to be motherly, bossy, and sometimes lovably preachy. Here she's pretty bland, though. Her basic purpose in this movie seems to be to say, "You can do it, Aang!" In the show, Sokka was one of the main sources of comic relief, constantly complaining and making sarcastic remarks. Though Rathbone does well with what he was given, the character, like Katara, is bland, stripped of much of his humor. The only highlight are a couple of nice scenes with Princess Yue towards the end. As for Iroh, his wise side was done well, but we saw precious little of his lazy, pleasure-loving side. Also, there is very little chemistry between the characters. There's none of the family-feel of the main group, none of the feelings Aang has for Katara, and little of the great chemistry between Zuko and Iroh. If they had made the movie longer, worked more on the pacing, and spent more time establishing the characters and their relationships, it would've worked wonders.Even though there were flaws in the casting and acting, there wasn't much in the way of writing for the actors to work with. Shyamalan continues his recent trend of writing lazy dialogue. The sets looked pretty good (especially the southern Air Temple), but the costumes, I thought, looked cheapish; they LOOKED like costumes. Also, there was an annoying habit of mispronouncing names - it was distracting, and I can't think of any reason why they did it (couldn't have been a mistake). Also, I thought the opening of the film was cheesy. They tried to emulate the opening sequence of the show, with the silhouettes doing examples of bending in front of a red background. It worked in the show, but it seemed silly here. Also, the written introduction, a la Star Wars, didn't help either.So yes, there's plenty not to like, but there are also some strong-points.First, the martial arts were very well done. And the CGI looked decent as well. The music, by James Newton Howard, is impressive (what else would you expect from Howard?). Also, the film got a little better towards the end, and there were moments where I actually got absorbed into it briefly.To sum up, it's not the worst movie of all time. I've seen worse films, and, despite what some people say, it has its strengths. But yes, it could've been MUCH better, too. Maybe the problem was too much studio involvement. Maybe it was just hard to compress that much material into a movie-length format. Maybe Shyamalan is just in a bad rut (we know he has talent, as his early films show). Or maybe it's some combination of all of them. It just seemed...a little lazily done. Definitely one of the more disappointing cinematic experiences I've had in years. So much potential, so little payoff.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-422

ur1693132

title: Could've been a lot better. review: First of all, let me start off by saying that, despite the horrible reviews this film is getting, this is NOT the worst movie you'll ever see. It's not great, but it's not the second-coming-of-Ed-Wood that some people are making it out to be. Much of the hatred, I find, stems either from the anti-casters (who take issue with there not being more Asian actors in the film, which was mostly a non-issue for me), or from fans of the show who didn't like this change or that change, or people who aren't familiar with the show and to whom the plot seems silly. Not to mention the Shyamalan detractors, who are likely to subtract a few stars from their rating of a film if his name is over the title.But, to sum up, yes, the movie was definitely a disappointment. First, the pacing is all off. It's way too rushed, especially early on. I don't know, maybe Paramount took a pair of scissors to it, not trusting the material or the audience, but it's definitely rushed. Generally, the casting was okay to me. Noah Ringer's acting was a tad awkward in places, but he did okay, considering he had no previous acting experience. He manages to portray Aang pretty accurately, and his martial arts skills are incredible. Dev Patel is one of the highlights of the film as Zuko. Jackson Rathbone did well as Sokka, but I was less impressed by Nicola Peltz as Katara. Most of the older actors did well, though the guy who played Zhao was a tad annoying sometimes (maybe he was meant to be).One of the biggest problems I had was with how the characters were portrayed. Especially Katara and Sokka. In the show, Katara was a formidable fighter in her own right, prone to be motherly, bossy, and sometimes lovably preachy. Here she's pretty bland, though. Her basic purpose in this movie seems to be to say, "You can do it, Aang!" In the show, Sokka was one of the main sources of comic relief, constantly complaining and making sarcastic remarks. Though Rathbone does well with what he was given, the character, like Katara, is bland, stripped of much of his humor. The only highlight are a couple of nice scenes with Princess Yue towards the end. As for Iroh, his wise side was done well, but we saw precious little of his lazy, pleasure-loving side. Also, there is very little chemistry between the characters. There's none of the family-feel of the main group, none of the feelings Aang has for Katara, and little of the great chemistry between Zuko and Iroh. If they had made the movie longer, worked more on the pacing, and spent more time establishing the characters and their relationships, it would've worked wonders.Even though there were flaws in the casting and acting, there wasn't much in the way of writing for the actors to work with. Shyamalan continues his recent trend of writing lazy dialogue. The sets looked pretty good (especially the southern Air Temple), but the costumes, I thought, looked cheapish; they LOOKED like costumes. Also, there was an annoying habit of mispronouncing names - it was distracting, and I can't think of any reason why they did it (couldn't have been a mistake). Also, I thought the opening of the film was cheesy. They tried to emulate the opening sequence of the show, with the silhouettes doing examples of bending in front of a red background. It worked in the show, but it seemed silly here. Also, the written introduction, a la Star Wars, didn't help either.So yes, there's plenty not to like, but there are also some strong-points.First, the martial arts were very well done. And the CGI looked decent as well. The music, by James Newton Howard, is impressive (what else would you expect from Howard?). Also, the film got a little better towards the end, and there were moments where I actually got absorbed into it briefly.To sum up, it's not the worst movie of all time. I've seen worse films, and, despite what some people say, it has its strengths. But yes, it could've been MUCH better, too. Maybe the problem was too much studio involvement. Maybe it was just hard to compress that much material into a movie-length format. Maybe Shyamalan is just in a bad rut (we know he has talent, as his early films show). Or maybe it's some combination of all of them. It just seemed...a little lazily done. Definitely one of the more disappointing cinematic experiences I've had in years. So much potential, so little payoff.

Suitable for younger audiences who don't know what good writing entails

tt0938283

There's only one pair of glasses that will make "The Last Airbender" a tolerable adventure and it's not the 3-D kind. Based on the Nickelodeon animated TV series, "Airbender" is a kids movie, fully equipped with a PG rating and young protagonists asked to shoulder a majority of the workload. Expect just that: a film for young audiences.In a post Lord of the Rings movie world, the expectations of fantasy are higher than ever: epic action, breathtaking landscapes and character-driven stories piloted by professional actors. Armed with the budget of an epic, "The Last Airbender" gives the illusion of such a film and will be judged primarily in all the ways that it fails to live up to those standards. But through the lens of a child, this film must appear as an awing big-budget spectacle that delivers itself directly at their eye level. If much-maligned filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan "did it all for the kids," I suspect he succeeded, but for fantasy fans and matured fans of the TV series, the story is a heck of a dud.Shyamalan fails this time as a writer. The script serves only to push the plot and is loaded with almost nothing but background information, running rampant like one of those faulty robotic floor cleaners scurrying about frantically with some false notion of purpose when it hits a corner and keeps backing up and re-treading over the same places, never covering all the desired spots. The oft-repeated concept is that Aang (Noah Ringer) is the last of the Air nation (there's Earth, Water and Fire as well) because they were exterminated by the Fire nation over the course of the last hundred years, during which time he was frozen in ice. The reason for their extermination was because the Fire nation, bent on ruling the planet, knew the next Avatar, or the ever-reincarnating human who is connected to the spirit world, can bend all four elements and exists to preserve peace, would be born an Airbender. That Avatar is Aang. Fire nation is after him (and not to kill him, because he'd be reincarnated so it's pointless) and he's destined to save the world. The script has very little faith in the fact that kids will understand that, which is probably a correct assumption in many ways, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to enjoy it if the script had been geared a bit more toward the 16-and-up crowd.These young actors, Ringer and co-stars Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone as young Water nation friends that accompany Aang's adventure, are asked to deliver almost all of this information-based dialogue, which sometimes even the best actors aren't good at. You can't expect a kid to act without giving them any kind of motivation-driven lines or some kind of an emotion to play out in the scene. Only Dev Patel as the Fire prince Zuko gets that luxury. Exiled by his father and shamed in front of his people, Zuko actually has motivation and it shows in Patel's performance being the only decent one in the film aside from a few moments from the supporting character Princess Yue (Seychelle Gabriel), who impressively finds her character's motivation in a story that doesn't provide it outside of expository dialogue.As for racist accusations in the casting of this film, every race and ethnicity is represented, (Earth people are Far East Asian, Fire are Persian, Indian and Italian, Air is a mixture of ethnicities and so on), but I can certainly understand it being suspect that the main characters (most of whom are Water nation citizens) are Caucasian. Without any frame of reference from the original series and expectations as to what the characters should look like, it did not affect the film experience or manifest itself in any way other than looks alone.The visual effects, which you'd expect to be the saving grace in some way, are not prolific enough to redeem "Airbender." The best scenes were already exposed in the trailers. However, the way that different martial arts styles for each element influence the way that element is "bent" in the fight sequences is interesting and unique and the way ancient Asian beliefs are incorporated into the fantasy lore certainly prevents any accusations of unoriginal or bad material. The presentation of this viable concept is what ends up being a tangled, frantic mess, particularly for those beyond a certain age who can't simply be awe-stricken into enjoying a movie. As a fantasy epic for children, however, "Airbender" will be like nothing they've experienced before because it will feel to them as if meant for older kids but they'll be able to grasp the elaborate concept behind it. Unfortunately, it won't hook their parents or older companions too.~Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-95

ur2496397

title: Suitable for younger audiences who don't know what good writing entails review: There's only one pair of glasses that will make "The Last Airbender" a tolerable adventure and it's not the 3-D kind. Based on the Nickelodeon animated TV series, "Airbender" is a kids movie, fully equipped with a PG rating and young protagonists asked to shoulder a majority of the workload. Expect just that: a film for young audiences.In a post Lord of the Rings movie world, the expectations of fantasy are higher than ever: epic action, breathtaking landscapes and character-driven stories piloted by professional actors. Armed with the budget of an epic, "The Last Airbender" gives the illusion of such a film and will be judged primarily in all the ways that it fails to live up to those standards. But through the lens of a child, this film must appear as an awing big-budget spectacle that delivers itself directly at their eye level. If much-maligned filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan "did it all for the kids," I suspect he succeeded, but for fantasy fans and matured fans of the TV series, the story is a heck of a dud.Shyamalan fails this time as a writer. The script serves only to push the plot and is loaded with almost nothing but background information, running rampant like one of those faulty robotic floor cleaners scurrying about frantically with some false notion of purpose when it hits a corner and keeps backing up and re-treading over the same places, never covering all the desired spots. The oft-repeated concept is that Aang (Noah Ringer) is the last of the Air nation (there's Earth, Water and Fire as well) because they were exterminated by the Fire nation over the course of the last hundred years, during which time he was frozen in ice. The reason for their extermination was because the Fire nation, bent on ruling the planet, knew the next Avatar, or the ever-reincarnating human who is connected to the spirit world, can bend all four elements and exists to preserve peace, would be born an Airbender. That Avatar is Aang. Fire nation is after him (and not to kill him, because he'd be reincarnated so it's pointless) and he's destined to save the world. The script has very little faith in the fact that kids will understand that, which is probably a correct assumption in many ways, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to enjoy it if the script had been geared a bit more toward the 16-and-up crowd.These young actors, Ringer and co-stars Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone as young Water nation friends that accompany Aang's adventure, are asked to deliver almost all of this information-based dialogue, which sometimes even the best actors aren't good at. You can't expect a kid to act without giving them any kind of motivation-driven lines or some kind of an emotion to play out in the scene. Only Dev Patel as the Fire prince Zuko gets that luxury. Exiled by his father and shamed in front of his people, Zuko actually has motivation and it shows in Patel's performance being the only decent one in the film aside from a few moments from the supporting character Princess Yue (Seychelle Gabriel), who impressively finds her character's motivation in a story that doesn't provide it outside of expository dialogue.As for racist accusations in the casting of this film, every race and ethnicity is represented, (Earth people are Far East Asian, Fire are Persian, Indian and Italian, Air is a mixture of ethnicities and so on), but I can certainly understand it being suspect that the main characters (most of whom are Water nation citizens) are Caucasian. Without any frame of reference from the original series and expectations as to what the characters should look like, it did not affect the film experience or manifest itself in any way other than looks alone.The visual effects, which you'd expect to be the saving grace in some way, are not prolific enough to redeem "Airbender." The best scenes were already exposed in the trailers. However, the way that different martial arts styles for each element influence the way that element is "bent" in the fight sequences is interesting and unique and the way ancient Asian beliefs are incorporated into the fantasy lore certainly prevents any accusations of unoriginal or bad material. The presentation of this viable concept is what ends up being a tangled, frantic mess, particularly for those beyond a certain age who can't simply be awe-stricken into enjoying a movie. As a fantasy epic for children, however, "Airbender" will be like nothing they've experienced before because it will feel to them as if meant for older kids but they'll be able to grasp the elaborate concept behind it. Unfortunately, it won't hook their parents or older companions too.~Steven CVisit my site at http://moviemusereviews.com

Agonizing. (The Last Windbreaker)

tt0938283

M. Night Shyamalan's career may be in the face of downfall after making his third turkey-flop in a row. THE LAST AIRBENDER is so terrible from start to finish that it never achieved to grab my attention, and as Shyamalan tries to walk the narrow line of fantasy-storytelling it all falls to pieces before you really care who this "airbender" is. Out of all the terrible things about this movie, it is the acting that takes the grand prize; not one single actor seems remotely interested in what he or she is doing, it is truly remarkable. The special effects are good, and that's the only thing in it that'll get acceptance from me. Without doubt one of the strongest contenders for the worst film of 2010.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1008

ur1732001

title: Agonizing. (The Last Windbreaker) review: M. Night Shyamalan's career may be in the face of downfall after making his third turkey-flop in a row. THE LAST AIRBENDER is so terrible from start to finish that it never achieved to grab my attention, and as Shyamalan tries to walk the narrow line of fantasy-storytelling it all falls to pieces before you really care who this "airbender" is. Out of all the terrible things about this movie, it is the acting that takes the grand prize; not one single actor seems remotely interested in what he or she is doing, it is truly remarkable. The special effects are good, and that's the only thing in it that'll get acceptance from me. Without doubt one of the strongest contenders for the worst film of 2010.

The Last of Shyamalan?

tt0938283

¨ He will begin to change hearts, and it is in the heart that all wars are won. ¨ This is the first film that M. Night Shyamalan directs an adapted screenplay since his earlier works have all been original screenplays written by him. I am probably one of the few Shyamalan fans left. I was a huge fan of his earlier movies; The Sixth Sense is one of my favorite films, I also loved Unbreakable and Signs. I even enjoyed his much criticized films: The Village, Lady in the Water, and The Happening, but I can't save him this time with his latest movie: The Last Airbender. He adapted the screenplay from the successful Nickelodeon anime series titled Avatar: The Last Airbender. I personally never saw the series, but I know it has a lot of fans and that it consists of three seasons (there are three books: Water, Earth, and Fire). I can only judge this film based on Shyamalan's screenplay since I know very little about the series, but from what I saw from the movie I am guessing it didn't translate very well into the big screen. The main actors were totally miscast, the transitions from scene to scene felt forced, the screenplay was very poorly written, and the characters were one dimensional. Between the bad actors and the poor script the movie failed to entertain, but I didn't hate it as much as most critics did. I don't think it is among the worst movies of the year, although I am not saying it is good either. The Last Airbender is Shyamalan's worst movie and the first that I actually found rotten. I still believe he will rebound from this, my faith isn't lost in him.Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) are brothers from the Southern Water tribe. Katara is a water bender and she discovers a giant frozen sphere outside of her village and decides to melt the ice. She accidentally discovers that there was a boy who has been frozen in that sphere. The boy tells Katara that his name is Aang (Noah Ringer) and supposedly an Avatar, the last of the Airbenders. This avatar has been missing for a hundred years and during that time the Fire Nation has been dominating the rest of the nations (Earth, Water, and Air). The Avatar was the only one who maintained the balance in the world since it could bend the four elements, but Aang never got to learn how to bend the rest of the elements since he escaped from his training and was frozen for a century. Now the Fire Nation controls most tribes, they have extinguished the Airbenders and don't allow the water and earth nations to bend their elements. Whoever is discovered to have bending abilities is imprisoned by Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) under Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi). Lord Ozai's son, Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) was expelled from the Fire Nation because he refused to fight with his father in a duel after challenging a Commander's decision during war. The only way Prince Zuko can regain his honor back is by capturing the Avatar and bringing him back to his father. Zuko is not alone in his quest; he is protected by his uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub). Aang begins to travel with Katara and Sokka setting earth villages free from the Fire nation, beginning rebellions, while heading to the North Water Kingdom where Aang will learn how to master water bending.The main actors, Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone, are really miscast in this film. I don't know if it was their acting or the script, but every scene they were in and every line they had to say felt really forced. The first thirty minutes of the film are really terrible, the scenes where Aang and Katara go free the Earth tribes are really poorly executed, and it isn't until they reach the North Water Kingdom that the movie picks up a little. The best scenes in the film are the ones with Dev Patel and Aasif Mandvi; they have the best dialogue on screen. I really didn't have any trouble with the special effects, although they aren't anything out of this world, just your average effects. The score was decent as well and it is the seventh time that Shyamalan has worked with composer James Newton Howard. I don't know if they will continue to make the next two sequels for The Last Airbender, but if they do they will have to correct a lot of things if they want to keep fans interested (beginning with the acting and the screenplay). This is a bad movie, but not among the worst I've seen either. My love for Shyamalan hasn't died yet and I still think he is a great director although he has lost his touch with his latest work.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-833

ur13566917

title: The Last of Shyamalan? review: ¨ He will begin to change hearts, and it is in the heart that all wars are won. ¨ This is the first film that M. Night Shyamalan directs an adapted screenplay since his earlier works have all been original screenplays written by him. I am probably one of the few Shyamalan fans left. I was a huge fan of his earlier movies; The Sixth Sense is one of my favorite films, I also loved Unbreakable and Signs. I even enjoyed his much criticized films: The Village, Lady in the Water, and The Happening, but I can't save him this time with his latest movie: The Last Airbender. He adapted the screenplay from the successful Nickelodeon anime series titled Avatar: The Last Airbender. I personally never saw the series, but I know it has a lot of fans and that it consists of three seasons (there are three books: Water, Earth, and Fire). I can only judge this film based on Shyamalan's screenplay since I know very little about the series, but from what I saw from the movie I am guessing it didn't translate very well into the big screen. The main actors were totally miscast, the transitions from scene to scene felt forced, the screenplay was very poorly written, and the characters were one dimensional. Between the bad actors and the poor script the movie failed to entertain, but I didn't hate it as much as most critics did. I don't think it is among the worst movies of the year, although I am not saying it is good either. The Last Airbender is Shyamalan's worst movie and the first that I actually found rotten. I still believe he will rebound from this, my faith isn't lost in him.Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) are brothers from the Southern Water tribe. Katara is a water bender and she discovers a giant frozen sphere outside of her village and decides to melt the ice. She accidentally discovers that there was a boy who has been frozen in that sphere. The boy tells Katara that his name is Aang (Noah Ringer) and supposedly an Avatar, the last of the Airbenders. This avatar has been missing for a hundred years and during that time the Fire Nation has been dominating the rest of the nations (Earth, Water, and Air). The Avatar was the only one who maintained the balance in the world since it could bend the four elements, but Aang never got to learn how to bend the rest of the elements since he escaped from his training and was frozen for a century. Now the Fire Nation controls most tribes, they have extinguished the Airbenders and don't allow the water and earth nations to bend their elements. Whoever is discovered to have bending abilities is imprisoned by Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) under Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi). Lord Ozai's son, Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) was expelled from the Fire Nation because he refused to fight with his father in a duel after challenging a Commander's decision during war. The only way Prince Zuko can regain his honor back is by capturing the Avatar and bringing him back to his father. Zuko is not alone in his quest; he is protected by his uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub). Aang begins to travel with Katara and Sokka setting earth villages free from the Fire nation, beginning rebellions, while heading to the North Water Kingdom where Aang will learn how to master water bending.The main actors, Nicola Peltz and Jackson Rathbone, are really miscast in this film. I don't know if it was their acting or the script, but every scene they were in and every line they had to say felt really forced. The first thirty minutes of the film are really terrible, the scenes where Aang and Katara go free the Earth tribes are really poorly executed, and it isn't until they reach the North Water Kingdom that the movie picks up a little. The best scenes in the film are the ones with Dev Patel and Aasif Mandvi; they have the best dialogue on screen. I really didn't have any trouble with the special effects, although they aren't anything out of this world, just your average effects. The score was decent as well and it is the seventh time that Shyamalan has worked with composer James Newton Howard. I don't know if they will continue to make the next two sequels for The Last Airbender, but if they do they will have to correct a lot of things if they want to keep fans interested (beginning with the acting and the screenplay). This is a bad movie, but not among the worst I've seen either. My love for Shyamalan hasn't died yet and I still think he is a great director although he has lost his touch with his latest work.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

Shouldn't have been made at all

tt0938283

I've never seen the cartoon, so my review is based solely on the movie – which I thankfully saw with a Rifftrax commentary. I don't think I would have seen the whole thing otherwise. Spoilers ahead, by the way.This movie's world is divided up into four nations: Fire, Earth, Air and Water. From what the movie shows me, I can conclude that the Fire Nation are all Indian warriors and douchebags, the Earth Nation are peaceful Asians, in touch with nature, the Air Nomads were Asian monks in touch with nature and the Water Nation are a peaceful Caucasian/Eskimo mix found in icy territories.The story is that the Avatar – who's role in the world is to communicate with the spirit world; to what end I'm not sure about – went missing 100 years ago. During this time the Fire Nation has started a war against all other nations, but I'm not clear on why. They knew that the Avatar would be born into the Air Nomads, so they slaughtered all the Air Nomads (10+ years AFTER the Avatar was born). I can't really figure out how, since the airbending Avatar sort of kicks the asses of all firebenders, and it baffles me why they'd do it, since no-one later tries to kill the Avatar himself. "There's no point. You'd just be reborn again," is their explanation. So why were they killing the Air Nomads to begin with? Was it to prevent him from learning airbending? No, I think not. He was already trained, and it's also apparently fully possible to learn bending from scrolls, that seem to be kept here and there.The Avatar, Aang, is found frozen in ice by an asthmatic, naive girl called Katara, and her dorky brother Sokka (these were the first impressions I got of the two), and they bring him to their village in the southern Water Nation. No sooner do they do this, than the outcast prince Zuko from the Fire Nation comes ashore and threatens to torch the village if Aang doesn't come along to his ship (some metal monstrosity spewing out thick black smoke, ensuring the Fire Nation's position as hate-worthy enemy of nature). Aang escapes with the help of Katara, Sokka and a flying creature, and goes back to his Air Temple, only to find everyone he once knew and loved dead. No time to waste, though; onwards, to start freeing villages in the Earth Nation! Aang is once again captured by the Fire Nation, but this time by the king's constantly confused-looking commander Zhao. This must all along have been known to Zuko, because mere hours later, he shows up in disguise and frees Aang. Zhao of course suspects that the masked warrior was indeed the prince, and goes on to whine to the king about the prince's incompetence, despite the fact that said prince just thwarted the commander's entire company.And speaking of icy territories, our three main characters now move on to the northern Water Kingdom, ruled by a white-haired young princess. Sokka and the princess become friends (and more) right away, or so we're told by Katara's narration, and that's that for relationship development. The Fire Nation soon shows up – Zhao to start a war, Zuko to sort of fly under the radar and kidnap Aang himself, with the help of his uncle Iroh – a former general in the king's army. Zhao's invasion of the city starts with a soldiers-on-battlement scene lifted straight from the battle at Helm's Deep, and continues with a lizard riding scene cut almost directly from Star Wars III. This didn't ruin anything for me, however, because the movie wasn't that good to begin with.Some stuff happens later: Zhao kills the Moon Spirit (which is a koi). Even though Iroh could have stopped him, he doesn't, save trying to talk him out of it. The princess sacrifices her own life to bring the koi back, making it possible for her people to win against the Fire Nation. But in the end, Aang is the one who sends the Fire Nation running, and by this point Zhao has died in battle (sort of) and Zuko and Iroh have fled the scene.The movie as a whole comes across as amateurish, rushed and packed with plot-holes and disturbingly close up close-ups. The special effects are okay, I guess, but the movie is still full of impossibly slow elemental attacks, that no-one nevertheless manages to avoid, and it's never hinted as to why everyone needs to do an entire martial arts exhibit to "bend". The acting is all around unimpressive and most of the dialog is cringe-worthy.Edit: Have now seen the cartoon, and will from here on never think about this abomination of a movie again. Recommend Shyamalan be whipped from here to Aberdeen for this crime against cinematic history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1278

ur15089770

title: Shouldn't have been made at all review: I've never seen the cartoon, so my review is based solely on the movie – which I thankfully saw with a Rifftrax commentary. I don't think I would have seen the whole thing otherwise. Spoilers ahead, by the way.This movie's world is divided up into four nations: Fire, Earth, Air and Water. From what the movie shows me, I can conclude that the Fire Nation are all Indian warriors and douchebags, the Earth Nation are peaceful Asians, in touch with nature, the Air Nomads were Asian monks in touch with nature and the Water Nation are a peaceful Caucasian/Eskimo mix found in icy territories.The story is that the Avatar – who's role in the world is to communicate with the spirit world; to what end I'm not sure about – went missing 100 years ago. During this time the Fire Nation has started a war against all other nations, but I'm not clear on why. They knew that the Avatar would be born into the Air Nomads, so they slaughtered all the Air Nomads (10+ years AFTER the Avatar was born). I can't really figure out how, since the airbending Avatar sort of kicks the asses of all firebenders, and it baffles me why they'd do it, since no-one later tries to kill the Avatar himself. "There's no point. You'd just be reborn again," is their explanation. So why were they killing the Air Nomads to begin with? Was it to prevent him from learning airbending? No, I think not. He was already trained, and it's also apparently fully possible to learn bending from scrolls, that seem to be kept here and there.The Avatar, Aang, is found frozen in ice by an asthmatic, naive girl called Katara, and her dorky brother Sokka (these were the first impressions I got of the two), and they bring him to their village in the southern Water Nation. No sooner do they do this, than the outcast prince Zuko from the Fire Nation comes ashore and threatens to torch the village if Aang doesn't come along to his ship (some metal monstrosity spewing out thick black smoke, ensuring the Fire Nation's position as hate-worthy enemy of nature). Aang escapes with the help of Katara, Sokka and a flying creature, and goes back to his Air Temple, only to find everyone he once knew and loved dead. No time to waste, though; onwards, to start freeing villages in the Earth Nation! Aang is once again captured by the Fire Nation, but this time by the king's constantly confused-looking commander Zhao. This must all along have been known to Zuko, because mere hours later, he shows up in disguise and frees Aang. Zhao of course suspects that the masked warrior was indeed the prince, and goes on to whine to the king about the prince's incompetence, despite the fact that said prince just thwarted the commander's entire company.And speaking of icy territories, our three main characters now move on to the northern Water Kingdom, ruled by a white-haired young princess. Sokka and the princess become friends (and more) right away, or so we're told by Katara's narration, and that's that for relationship development. The Fire Nation soon shows up – Zhao to start a war, Zuko to sort of fly under the radar and kidnap Aang himself, with the help of his uncle Iroh – a former general in the king's army. Zhao's invasion of the city starts with a soldiers-on-battlement scene lifted straight from the battle at Helm's Deep, and continues with a lizard riding scene cut almost directly from Star Wars III. This didn't ruin anything for me, however, because the movie wasn't that good to begin with.Some stuff happens later: Zhao kills the Moon Spirit (which is a koi). Even though Iroh could have stopped him, he doesn't, save trying to talk him out of it. The princess sacrifices her own life to bring the koi back, making it possible for her people to win against the Fire Nation. But in the end, Aang is the one who sends the Fire Nation running, and by this point Zhao has died in battle (sort of) and Zuko and Iroh have fled the scene.The movie as a whole comes across as amateurish, rushed and packed with plot-holes and disturbingly close up close-ups. The special effects are okay, I guess, but the movie is still full of impossibly slow elemental attacks, that no-one nevertheless manages to avoid, and it's never hinted as to why everyone needs to do an entire martial arts exhibit to "bend". The acting is all around unimpressive and most of the dialog is cringe-worthy.Edit: Have now seen the cartoon, and will from here on never think about this abomination of a movie again. Recommend Shyamalan be whipped from here to Aberdeen for this crime against cinematic history.

Ugh.

tt0938283

Will somebody please put a gun (empty) to M. Night Shyamalan's head and tell him he must make his next movie FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S SCRIPT?! I live in Philly, and the guy is a local celebrity, but everything he's done since Sixth Sense has been hopelessly portentous crap. He needs to lower his sights and write something about ordinary people grappling with ordinary, earthbound problems. Instead of ordinary people grappling with a threatening, malignant universe, and taking everything so doggone seriously. Doesn't anything funny or absurd, or simply *light* ever happen to him? I got news for him, to quote Ricky Gervais:"Life is hopeless and useless. Then you die. Happy Christmas!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-8

ur2500392

title: Ugh. review: Will somebody please put a gun (empty) to M. Night Shyamalan's head and tell him he must make his next movie FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S SCRIPT?! I live in Philly, and the guy is a local celebrity, but everything he's done since Sixth Sense has been hopelessly portentous crap. He needs to lower his sights and write something about ordinary people grappling with ordinary, earthbound problems. Instead of ordinary people grappling with a threatening, malignant universe, and taking everything so doggone seriously. Doesn't anything funny or absurd, or simply *light* ever happen to him? I got news for him, to quote Ricky Gervais:"Life is hopeless and useless. Then you die. Happy Christmas!"

The Last Airbender: Not bad, but not the best.

tt0938283

OK, as some of you know I'm a huge fan of the show Avatar: The Last Airbender, and when I heard there was going to be a movie about it nothing could contain my enthusiasm. Now, two years later, I have seen the film I have been looking forward to that whole time; the live action adaptation of the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. So fans, fear not for this is a very faithful adaptation compared to most others out there.But first a quick synopsis. M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender is a action/ fantasy film which revolves around a group of people in an alternate world who can control the elements of earth, air, water, and fire through the ancient art of bending. Now the Fire Nation began a war and wiped out the Air Nomads, and supposedly the Avatar who is the master of all elements and the keeper of peace for the world. The Avatar (named Aang) escaped and is frozen in a block of ice for 100 years. It is then two Water Tribe tribe siblings (Katara and Sokka) discover him in the South Pole. They bring him back to their village and very quickly the banished prince of the Fire Nation, Prince Zuko, is hot on their trails. Aang discovers his people are dead and goes on a quest with Sokka and Katara to the Northern Water tribe to master water and put an end to the war.Given M. Night Shyamalan's recent record of stinkers (Lady in the Water and The Happening) one may think this would suck. But, rest assured, I can honestly say this is his best since Signs. The visual effects were impressive and his style of long takes made them beautiful to say the least. And the bending effects were unique to each character and no two shots were the same.On to the acting. Let's start with the main character Aang (played by newcomer Noah Ringer). I must say I'm impressed. The kid is twelve years old and has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and is able to put on a decent performance. But something didn't sit right with me for all the actors. A lot of the lines seem forced and restricted to one or two takes. Which falls under Shyamalan's jurisdiction. I realize for a movie of this size things, such as acting, tend to be scaled down for timing reasons. But it could've been a lot better. For the record I don't blame the actors, just Shyamalan for his laziness.As for the supporting cast and villains lets start with who I think were the best performers. Both Prince Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire) and his uncle Iroh (Iron Man's Shaun Toub) easily stole the show. Despite lazy writing and directing they demonstrated exceptional acting and represented their characters incredibly well. Expect big things from Patel in the future.Aang's sidekicks Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone of Twilight fame) were definitely hit or miss. While Peltz seemed to try and emoted better than her on screen brother, their lines made me wish Shyamalan hired a co writer. Petlz at times was too melodramatic and caused me to not take her seriously, and Rathbone just wasn't there for me with the exception of one scene near the end which involved a very touching moment between him and Yue (Seychelle Gabriel). Other than that they were mediocre at best.As for the villains, Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) and Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi of the Daily Show) they came off as more cardboard cut out villains than anything remotely threatening. Especially Zhao. Mandvi was obviously the wrong guy for the job and could only ham it up. Curtis was better and at least had the charisma of a gruff war lord who walked around in fancy clothes all day.Other than the acting and writing, my only major complaint was the time and pacing. The first season of the show had roughly 10 hours worth of material. Naturally I knew going in that a lot had to be cut to make a decent length feature film. And, yes, a lot was cut. I won't go into specifics without spoiling but there could've been more. However the pacing was really off. It seemed as if all the back story was summed up by a few quick lines of exposition, when it could've easily been filmed. Screen writing 101: show, don't tell. Shyamalan flunked that part up. On top of that the pacing was so fast that you almost have no time to breathe and the plot is ahead of you by miles while you're running to catch up.And there could've been more action. I won't go into any spoilers but 90% of the action scenes are what's in the trailers. This was marketed as an action movie and it barely delivered. But that's more of a creative decision on my part. If I would have made it, the action would've been upped. I digress.As usual James Newton Howard's score was simply breathtaking and if you haven't heard it I would highly recommend you check it out. I hope this man gets an Oscar for this. Easily the best score out of the whole year.All in all this is a decent popcorn flick and worthy of a summer release. The kids will like it, most of the fans will like it, and even some of the parents will like it. It has a good story and a good message which is something rare for kids these days. And it's a nice break from the usual shoot 'em up, CGI porn, and irrational romance movies that offer little more than time killers.Effects/ Sound: A Writing: D Driecting: C Cinematography: B Acting (combined): C Score: ATotal: C (See it only if it looks good to you)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-171

ur12660860

title: The Last Airbender: Not bad, but not the best. review: OK, as some of you know I'm a huge fan of the show Avatar: The Last Airbender, and when I heard there was going to be a movie about it nothing could contain my enthusiasm. Now, two years later, I have seen the film I have been looking forward to that whole time; the live action adaptation of the first season of Avatar: The Last Airbender. So fans, fear not for this is a very faithful adaptation compared to most others out there.But first a quick synopsis. M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender is a action/ fantasy film which revolves around a group of people in an alternate world who can control the elements of earth, air, water, and fire through the ancient art of bending. Now the Fire Nation began a war and wiped out the Air Nomads, and supposedly the Avatar who is the master of all elements and the keeper of peace for the world. The Avatar (named Aang) escaped and is frozen in a block of ice for 100 years. It is then two Water Tribe tribe siblings (Katara and Sokka) discover him in the South Pole. They bring him back to their village and very quickly the banished prince of the Fire Nation, Prince Zuko, is hot on their trails. Aang discovers his people are dead and goes on a quest with Sokka and Katara to the Northern Water tribe to master water and put an end to the war.Given M. Night Shyamalan's recent record of stinkers (Lady in the Water and The Happening) one may think this would suck. But, rest assured, I can honestly say this is his best since Signs. The visual effects were impressive and his style of long takes made them beautiful to say the least. And the bending effects were unique to each character and no two shots were the same.On to the acting. Let's start with the main character Aang (played by newcomer Noah Ringer). I must say I'm impressed. The kid is twelve years old and has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and is able to put on a decent performance. But something didn't sit right with me for all the actors. A lot of the lines seem forced and restricted to one or two takes. Which falls under Shyamalan's jurisdiction. I realize for a movie of this size things, such as acting, tend to be scaled down for timing reasons. But it could've been a lot better. For the record I don't blame the actors, just Shyamalan for his laziness.As for the supporting cast and villains lets start with who I think were the best performers. Both Prince Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire) and his uncle Iroh (Iron Man's Shaun Toub) easily stole the show. Despite lazy writing and directing they demonstrated exceptional acting and represented their characters incredibly well. Expect big things from Patel in the future.Aang's sidekicks Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone of Twilight fame) were definitely hit or miss. While Peltz seemed to try and emoted better than her on screen brother, their lines made me wish Shyamalan hired a co writer. Petlz at times was too melodramatic and caused me to not take her seriously, and Rathbone just wasn't there for me with the exception of one scene near the end which involved a very touching moment between him and Yue (Seychelle Gabriel). Other than that they were mediocre at best.As for the villains, Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) and Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi of the Daily Show) they came off as more cardboard cut out villains than anything remotely threatening. Especially Zhao. Mandvi was obviously the wrong guy for the job and could only ham it up. Curtis was better and at least had the charisma of a gruff war lord who walked around in fancy clothes all day.Other than the acting and writing, my only major complaint was the time and pacing. The first season of the show had roughly 10 hours worth of material. Naturally I knew going in that a lot had to be cut to make a decent length feature film. And, yes, a lot was cut. I won't go into specifics without spoiling but there could've been more. However the pacing was really off. It seemed as if all the back story was summed up by a few quick lines of exposition, when it could've easily been filmed. Screen writing 101: show, don't tell. Shyamalan flunked that part up. On top of that the pacing was so fast that you almost have no time to breathe and the plot is ahead of you by miles while you're running to catch up.And there could've been more action. I won't go into any spoilers but 90% of the action scenes are what's in the trailers. This was marketed as an action movie and it barely delivered. But that's more of a creative decision on my part. If I would have made it, the action would've been upped. I digress.As usual James Newton Howard's score was simply breathtaking and if you haven't heard it I would highly recommend you check it out. I hope this man gets an Oscar for this. Easily the best score out of the whole year.All in all this is a decent popcorn flick and worthy of a summer release. The kids will like it, most of the fans will like it, and even some of the parents will like it. It has a good story and a good message which is something rare for kids these days. And it's a nice break from the usual shoot 'em up, CGI porn, and irrational romance movies that offer little more than time killers.Effects/ Sound: A Writing: D Driecting: C Cinematography: B Acting (combined): C Score: ATotal: C (See it only if it looks good to you)

Once the CGI effects wear off, you wonder where did the storyline go...

tt0938283

I have never seen a single episode of the animated series, so I had absolutely no expectation to this movie. However, I will say that when I noticed that the director was M. Night Shyamalan I did have my doubts that this would be interesting.With an impression-free slate and absolutely no knowledge about the lore and history in the series, I will say that "The Last Airbender" turned out to be adequate entertainment.The movie was an impressive piece of visual treat, with an overwhelming amount of really nice CGI effects - all elemental (air, earth, fire and water) effects were dazzling to look at.Storywise, well it was predictable to the core. But still, it was entertaining enough to watch. Just don't expect the movie to challenge your intellect in any way. Sure, there were storyline plot holes, but overall, it was good enough.As for the characters in the movie, well again I have no comparison to the animated series, but I think the characters in the movie were nicely detailed, though the movie wasn't heavy on character development and building. This is first and foremost a movie that is depending on the CGI effects.Aside from the dazzling CGI effects, then I was really impressed with the details and the appearances of the sets and surroundings. It was just spectacular and breathtaking. There were so many nice details here, both grand and minute.This 2010 "The Last Airbender" movie only covered Book One: Water, so I assume that there are three more movies on the planning board? As in the remaining three elements; fire, earth and air.I am rating "The Last Airbender" 5 out of 10, because this is essentially a predictable and hollow movie that is just surviving on the impressive CGI effects - and let's be honest, CGI effects does not make a movie. That, and the fact that this movie was tailored for a young audience - as it was based on a cartoon after all.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1366

ur22654354

title: Once the CGI effects wear off, you wonder where did the storyline go... review: I have never seen a single episode of the animated series, so I had absolutely no expectation to this movie. However, I will say that when I noticed that the director was M. Night Shyamalan I did have my doubts that this would be interesting.With an impression-free slate and absolutely no knowledge about the lore and history in the series, I will say that "The Last Airbender" turned out to be adequate entertainment.The movie was an impressive piece of visual treat, with an overwhelming amount of really nice CGI effects - all elemental (air, earth, fire and water) effects were dazzling to look at.Storywise, well it was predictable to the core. But still, it was entertaining enough to watch. Just don't expect the movie to challenge your intellect in any way. Sure, there were storyline plot holes, but overall, it was good enough.As for the characters in the movie, well again I have no comparison to the animated series, but I think the characters in the movie were nicely detailed, though the movie wasn't heavy on character development and building. This is first and foremost a movie that is depending on the CGI effects.Aside from the dazzling CGI effects, then I was really impressed with the details and the appearances of the sets and surroundings. It was just spectacular and breathtaking. There were so many nice details here, both grand and minute.This 2010 "The Last Airbender" movie only covered Book One: Water, so I assume that there are three more movies on the planning board? As in the remaining three elements; fire, earth and air.I am rating "The Last Airbender" 5 out of 10, because this is essentially a predictable and hollow movie that is just surviving on the impressive CGI effects - and let's be honest, CGI effects does not make a movie. That, and the fact that this movie was tailored for a young audience - as it was based on a cartoon after all.

Good try but could use improvements.

tt0938283

Avatar The Last Airbender is without a doubt one of the greatest animated action-adventure series of all time. It has memorable characters, remarkable creatures, an original story, fantastic music, awesome action scenes, inventive comedy, and...well...you get the idea. So naturally I was excited that a live-action movie adaptation was in the works and the trailers only furthered that excitement. Has this movie lived up to that hype? Well, not entirely.I mean this movie isn't really bad because it has some good qualities to it. The action scenes and the special effects are certainly a spectacle to watch and the design of the entire avatar world is quite creative. The creature designs like Appa are great and well detailed. So yeah, there are some things to like about this flick.I admit that there are some things to complain here. One major complaint the world offered is the ethnicity of the four nations, specifically the Water tribe and the Fire Nation. In the show, the Water Tribe had brownish skin like Eskimos and the Fire Nation were basically white but here in the movie it's the other way around. Also, some of the characters like Sokka (he's not at all funny and he's pretty bland) were not portrayed accurately or that the acting wasn't really good enough. Exceptions include Iroh and his nephew Zuko who did just fine. Some characters, I've felt, did not do enough and you'd see who I'm talking about.I actually expected this movie to be at least two or three hours long but it isn't, therefore a lot of things were not explored or explained enough, such as the spirit world. I felt that they were being lazy on the detail of the spirit world because in the show it's such a vast and unworldly place full of strange creatures, but here they never bothered to do that. Certain dialog also felt out of place and seems random at times. They could have brought more focus on to many things, but for reasons beyond my understanding they were left alone. So many things left unchecked.In conclusion, this is pretty good but it still has a lot to live up to. Hopefully, improvements will be made in the upcoming sequel. Wanna see it? Be my guest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1263

ur27881178

title: Good try but could use improvements. review: Avatar The Last Airbender is without a doubt one of the greatest animated action-adventure series of all time. It has memorable characters, remarkable creatures, an original story, fantastic music, awesome action scenes, inventive comedy, and...well...you get the idea. So naturally I was excited that a live-action movie adaptation was in the works and the trailers only furthered that excitement. Has this movie lived up to that hype? Well, not entirely.I mean this movie isn't really bad because it has some good qualities to it. The action scenes and the special effects are certainly a spectacle to watch and the design of the entire avatar world is quite creative. The creature designs like Appa are great and well detailed. So yeah, there are some things to like about this flick.I admit that there are some things to complain here. One major complaint the world offered is the ethnicity of the four nations, specifically the Water tribe and the Fire Nation. In the show, the Water Tribe had brownish skin like Eskimos and the Fire Nation were basically white but here in the movie it's the other way around. Also, some of the characters like Sokka (he's not at all funny and he's pretty bland) were not portrayed accurately or that the acting wasn't really good enough. Exceptions include Iroh and his nephew Zuko who did just fine. Some characters, I've felt, did not do enough and you'd see who I'm talking about.I actually expected this movie to be at least two or three hours long but it isn't, therefore a lot of things were not explored or explained enough, such as the spirit world. I felt that they were being lazy on the detail of the spirit world because in the show it's such a vast and unworldly place full of strange creatures, but here they never bothered to do that. Certain dialog also felt out of place and seems random at times. They could have brought more focus on to many things, but for reasons beyond my understanding they were left alone. So many things left unchecked.In conclusion, this is pretty good but it still has a lot to live up to. Hopefully, improvements will be made in the upcoming sequel. Wanna see it? Be my guest.

Well made with some kinks!

tt0938283

The last airbender was a movie that I did not have any regrets seeing. It was an interesting experience watching real people doing what was only done before in cartoons. I am well aware that two more movies are going to be made after this. Here is a few thing that I hope will be included in the next films.3D: The the 3D was not the greatest. It was only noticeable if I was really looking for it.Acting: The acting was not the best ever and could use some improvement. Although I love Shyamalan's dark thriller look in all of the rest of his stories, I don't think this was quite the place for it. In the cartoon, Aang was this carefree child that could and would laugh at anything funny. Same with sokka. When Toph is brought into the story, she better not be a dull person like the rest.Special effects: The special effects were amazing. Every type of bending looked like it was really happening.Music: No movie that I have seen has had better music that this movie. James Newton Howard needs to continue doing what he is doing for the next two movies.In the end, The last airbender was a great experience in which was very enjoyable. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD, but it is not a movies that I will go to when making a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-763

ur23698133

title: Well made with some kinks! review: The last airbender was a movie that I did not have any regrets seeing. It was an interesting experience watching real people doing what was only done before in cartoons. I am well aware that two more movies are going to be made after this. Here is a few thing that I hope will be included in the next films.3D: The the 3D was not the greatest. It was only noticeable if I was really looking for it.Acting: The acting was not the best ever and could use some improvement. Although I love Shyamalan's dark thriller look in all of the rest of his stories, I don't think this was quite the place for it. In the cartoon, Aang was this carefree child that could and would laugh at anything funny. Same with sokka. When Toph is brought into the story, she better not be a dull person like the rest.Special effects: The special effects were amazing. Every type of bending looked like it was really happening.Music: No movie that I have seen has had better music that this movie. James Newton Howard needs to continue doing what he is doing for the next two movies.In the end, The last airbender was a great experience in which was very enjoyable. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD, but it is not a movies that I will go to when making a movie.

I hope this is the last

tt0938283

It seems that M. Night Shyamalan has lost his genius creativity that he had with The Sixth Sense(1998), Unbreakable(2000), and Signs(2002), and the last three in which i didn't see, proves M. Night Shyamalan has really lost his genius, and The Last Airbender also proves it.Now where do I begin, I never saw the cartoon, but i'm sure it was not as badly done as this movie was. Noah Ringer who plays Aang, proves he does not have much experience in his acting,cause his performance is so over the top, and annoying. The effects are alright in some parts, others they look incredible hokey. And the fight scenes are a joke. But Dev Patel is the only one of the cast who gives a descent performance, I would have liked a little more if the film was more about him.I liked Percy Jackson more, because it knew its tone and where it was going, but the last Airbender seems confused where to go. It's a reminder that you've seen better sci-fi dramas. I hope M. Night finds his way.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-239

ur4593705

title: I hope this is the last review: It seems that M. Night Shyamalan has lost his genius creativity that he had with The Sixth Sense(1998), Unbreakable(2000), and Signs(2002), and the last three in which i didn't see, proves M. Night Shyamalan has really lost his genius, and The Last Airbender also proves it.Now where do I begin, I never saw the cartoon, but i'm sure it was not as badly done as this movie was. Noah Ringer who plays Aang, proves he does not have much experience in his acting,cause his performance is so over the top, and annoying. The effects are alright in some parts, others they look incredible hokey. And the fight scenes are a joke. But Dev Patel is the only one of the cast who gives a descent performance, I would have liked a little more if the film was more about him.I liked Percy Jackson more, because it knew its tone and where it was going, but the last Airbender seems confused where to go. It's a reminder that you've seen better sci-fi dramas. I hope M. Night finds his way.

Coming from a hard-core fan of the series

tt0938283

Before we begin, I would like to point out that The Last Airbender cartoon is my favorite animated TV show of all time. First, I'll say what I loved about the film, and that would be the way it looks. The special effects, costumes, and sets, perfectly match the TV show. However this seems to be the one thing that people, even if they hate the movie, have said the CG and production design is good, if they said the CG looked bad, than, you are clearly blinded by hatred, I think the CG looks just as good as Inception's was. But let's move on to me actually defending this film.The Acting: everyone says that the acting stunk, Noah Ringer is officially the worst child actor ever, and Dev Patel was miscast. Now I do admit that Aang was pretty bland and overall, not that good, but it was Noah's first movie, and believe me, I have seen worse first performances, I've even seen worse non first performances. I thought most of the adults were OK. Nicola Peltz was also pretty bland, but she had her moments. Same with Jackson. And finally, I think that Dev Patel did a great job, he was over the top in some scenes, and dramatic in others, but everyone likes to complain that the original voice actor for Zuko, Dante Basco, and while he was a great voice actor, at the time of filming, he was probably 32-33 years old, Patel was around 18-19 when he filmed the film, 18-19 is closer to 16 than 32-33.The Characters: According to the main consensus, all the characters are completely changed from their original source material. I call wrong. In the show, Aang is either fun or dramatic, in the movie, he's almost completely dramatic, with a few instances of fun, such as when he hid behind Zuko's back. So basically he took one of his character traits, and did that the whole movie. Katara is supposed to be like both a friend, and motherly figure, and she kinda was, such as when she tried to protect the little earth bender from the fire nation. Now the changes to Sokka truly were the worst, I can handle Aang being overly dramatic, but Sokka needs to be fun. And to be honest he had his moments, like when he kicked a fire bender right in the nuts, but I really wanted more comedic relief with him. And I thought Zuko was done the best, don't deny it, Zuko was always overly dramatic, rarely was he ever used as comedic relief. And finally Iroh, and this is the only character change that I couldn't stand, he wasn't funny, he wasn't fat, he wasn't awesome, but there were a few scenes when he did show signs of the real Iroh, such as the scenes at the North Pole.The Name Changes: there were only four of them, GET OVER IT!!! The action: Most say that the action scenes are boring, and not interesting. And while I agree that the action itself wasn't anything special, I do like the way they were shot, lots of slow motion, 360 shots, and in a time when acion need to be shot up close and shaky (Transformers, Hurt Locker, HP7pt. 1), it was a breath of fresh air to actually see the action, and this is from a director who has only made thrillers and romance movies before.The Racebending: This is probably just a personal thing, but I didn't mind this. Why? Because I had no idea that the characters in the TV show were Asian. In the show I was so invested in the characters, that I didn't care what race they were, and if you did care, then you obviously weren't that big a fan of the show in the first place. (Warning, this is a joke, I'm sure that most hardcore fans of the Last Airbender cartoon knew that the characters were Asian.) Bender: This isn't really a problem most have with this movie, but apparently over in Europe, the word Bender means Homosexual male, and people have actually used this as a slam at the movie. Why? So for you people complaining that there were so many changes, you actually now want the word bender taken out of a movie in which people can bend elements. Come to think of it, how does that work, how did the show air over there with the word Bender in the title.And finally, how does this movie work as an adaptation. Overall, I say that most of the important stuff that happened in the first season of the show, with two exceptions, the Kyoshi warriors, and Jet. In fact the Kyoshi warriors were actually filmed, but they had to be cut because the movie needed to be shortened for a cheaper 3D conversion, so blame Paramount, it's there fault. But the basic premise of the first season is the same as the movie. PS. I didn't see this movie in 3D.I know that despite this review, there are still millions of people who despise this movie, and that's fine. But they still have the show. The show is not going to be ruined from watching this movie, if the show did somehow change, than there's something wrong with you. I actually did recently re-watch all of season 2 and 3, and during that whole time, I completely forgot that the movie even existed.I know I'm making the movie sound better than it actually is, and it truly is a flawed movie, but I still like it. Please leave comments if you agree or disagree. I didn't mean to almost completely praise the movie, but it already get's enough hate as it is, I give the movie a 6.5/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1044

ur20621243

title: Coming from a hard-core fan of the series review: Before we begin, I would like to point out that The Last Airbender cartoon is my favorite animated TV show of all time. First, I'll say what I loved about the film, and that would be the way it looks. The special effects, costumes, and sets, perfectly match the TV show. However this seems to be the one thing that people, even if they hate the movie, have said the CG and production design is good, if they said the CG looked bad, than, you are clearly blinded by hatred, I think the CG looks just as good as Inception's was. But let's move on to me actually defending this film.The Acting: everyone says that the acting stunk, Noah Ringer is officially the worst child actor ever, and Dev Patel was miscast. Now I do admit that Aang was pretty bland and overall, not that good, but it was Noah's first movie, and believe me, I have seen worse first performances, I've even seen worse non first performances. I thought most of the adults were OK. Nicola Peltz was also pretty bland, but she had her moments. Same with Jackson. And finally, I think that Dev Patel did a great job, he was over the top in some scenes, and dramatic in others, but everyone likes to complain that the original voice actor for Zuko, Dante Basco, and while he was a great voice actor, at the time of filming, he was probably 32-33 years old, Patel was around 18-19 when he filmed the film, 18-19 is closer to 16 than 32-33.The Characters: According to the main consensus, all the characters are completely changed from their original source material. I call wrong. In the show, Aang is either fun or dramatic, in the movie, he's almost completely dramatic, with a few instances of fun, such as when he hid behind Zuko's back. So basically he took one of his character traits, and did that the whole movie. Katara is supposed to be like both a friend, and motherly figure, and she kinda was, such as when she tried to protect the little earth bender from the fire nation. Now the changes to Sokka truly were the worst, I can handle Aang being overly dramatic, but Sokka needs to be fun. And to be honest he had his moments, like when he kicked a fire bender right in the nuts, but I really wanted more comedic relief with him. And I thought Zuko was done the best, don't deny it, Zuko was always overly dramatic, rarely was he ever used as comedic relief. And finally Iroh, and this is the only character change that I couldn't stand, he wasn't funny, he wasn't fat, he wasn't awesome, but there were a few scenes when he did show signs of the real Iroh, such as the scenes at the North Pole.The Name Changes: there were only four of them, GET OVER IT!!! The action: Most say that the action scenes are boring, and not interesting. And while I agree that the action itself wasn't anything special, I do like the way they were shot, lots of slow motion, 360 shots, and in a time when acion need to be shot up close and shaky (Transformers, Hurt Locker, HP7pt. 1), it was a breath of fresh air to actually see the action, and this is from a director who has only made thrillers and romance movies before.The Racebending: This is probably just a personal thing, but I didn't mind this. Why? Because I had no idea that the characters in the TV show were Asian. In the show I was so invested in the characters, that I didn't care what race they were, and if you did care, then you obviously weren't that big a fan of the show in the first place. (Warning, this is a joke, I'm sure that most hardcore fans of the Last Airbender cartoon knew that the characters were Asian.) Bender: This isn't really a problem most have with this movie, but apparently over in Europe, the word Bender means Homosexual male, and people have actually used this as a slam at the movie. Why? So for you people complaining that there were so many changes, you actually now want the word bender taken out of a movie in which people can bend elements. Come to think of it, how does that work, how did the show air over there with the word Bender in the title.And finally, how does this movie work as an adaptation. Overall, I say that most of the important stuff that happened in the first season of the show, with two exceptions, the Kyoshi warriors, and Jet. In fact the Kyoshi warriors were actually filmed, but they had to be cut because the movie needed to be shortened for a cheaper 3D conversion, so blame Paramount, it's there fault. But the basic premise of the first season is the same as the movie. PS. I didn't see this movie in 3D.I know that despite this review, there are still millions of people who despise this movie, and that's fine. But they still have the show. The show is not going to be ruined from watching this movie, if the show did somehow change, than there's something wrong with you. I actually did recently re-watch all of season 2 and 3, and during that whole time, I completely forgot that the movie even existed.I know I'm making the movie sound better than it actually is, and it truly is a flawed movie, but I still like it. Please leave comments if you agree or disagree. I didn't mean to almost completely praise the movie, but it already get's enough hate as it is, I give the movie a 6.5/10.

Let's Hope its the Last

tt0938283

I was thoroughly disappointed in The Last Airbender…but not just for the low quality it was. It was because I was expecting to laugh out loud throughout, as I do with many M. Night Shyamalan movies. I mean, The Happening was one of the funniest movies I've seen.Okay, there were a few scenes I laughed uncontrollably, such as some of the high-school-esquire choreographed in sync fight dances or whenever Aang (Ringer) opened his puny mouth making little Annie (Jake Lloyd from Star Wars Episode I) seem actually intelligent. But for the most part, I just simply couldn't wait for this experience to be over – and it was, mercifully, only 103 minutes!Perhaps I just wasn't the target audience, and I have yet to see the source material. I would say this was solely intended for the age 2-5 crowd. It's easy enough for them to understand and there was barely an offensive reason to be anything more than 'G.' My guess on why it was 'PG' was the semi-violence, or scenes so incredibly tame, they wouldn't even have been edited out of a Looney Toons short on Saturday mornings.Though it wasn't the worst movie I've seen, nor was it Sleepy-Shyamalan's, it just wasn't any good. The writing was all over the place, the acting was laughable – namely, but not limited to, the main actor, Ringer, who was supposed to carry the picture, the dreadful dialogue was simply painful and the "fight" scenes might have worked on the original Street Fighter II game, but not today. This is the Star Wars Episode I of The Lord of the Rings and the Masters of the Universe of The Chronicles of Narnia.My assumption is Shyamalan was trying to fit an entire series of TV episodes in one movie and even if you haven't seen the original shows, you can clearly see he missed large chunks and began ideas that simply went nowhere. Such as, this little tyke Aang had to learn how to bend the other elements but only got as far as element #2 of 4 when previously he already had #1 down pat.So we have these Wonder-Twin siblings, Katara (Peltz) and Sokka (Rathbone) who are out hunting for food when they stumble upon the 1000-year missing Avatar, Aang, trapped in the ice with his faithful giant flying dog straight out of The Neverending Story. He's wanted by The Fire People for reasons that shift constantly throughout the movie.And this is where it gets somewhat funny and eventually tedious: he's captured 4-5 times and always thwarts them to where you have to wonder if each time he's caught, that was the end to one TV episode with the words "To Be Continued" even though you know he'll be freed the next week.This back and forth prisoner must learn the bending of the other elements so he can truly be the Avatar, or the only one who can bend all elements and bring harmony to the world of fantasy. But, instead of reaching that goal, they simply end with the obligatory final battle accompanied with a "heartfelt" message of "Why can't we all just get along?"I guess I could recommend this to the under-five crowd for the somewhat "feel-good" message – mostly on how to stay away from fire since it burns, and for the semi-good special effects. But for anyone six and above, just skip. Skip it like the movie skips all over globe too many times.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-904

ur17825945

title: Let's Hope its the Last review: I was thoroughly disappointed in The Last Airbender…but not just for the low quality it was. It was because I was expecting to laugh out loud throughout, as I do with many M. Night Shyamalan movies. I mean, The Happening was one of the funniest movies I've seen.Okay, there were a few scenes I laughed uncontrollably, such as some of the high-school-esquire choreographed in sync fight dances or whenever Aang (Ringer) opened his puny mouth making little Annie (Jake Lloyd from Star Wars Episode I) seem actually intelligent. But for the most part, I just simply couldn't wait for this experience to be over – and it was, mercifully, only 103 minutes!Perhaps I just wasn't the target audience, and I have yet to see the source material. I would say this was solely intended for the age 2-5 crowd. It's easy enough for them to understand and there was barely an offensive reason to be anything more than 'G.' My guess on why it was 'PG' was the semi-violence, or scenes so incredibly tame, they wouldn't even have been edited out of a Looney Toons short on Saturday mornings.Though it wasn't the worst movie I've seen, nor was it Sleepy-Shyamalan's, it just wasn't any good. The writing was all over the place, the acting was laughable – namely, but not limited to, the main actor, Ringer, who was supposed to carry the picture, the dreadful dialogue was simply painful and the "fight" scenes might have worked on the original Street Fighter II game, but not today. This is the Star Wars Episode I of The Lord of the Rings and the Masters of the Universe of The Chronicles of Narnia.My assumption is Shyamalan was trying to fit an entire series of TV episodes in one movie and even if you haven't seen the original shows, you can clearly see he missed large chunks and began ideas that simply went nowhere. Such as, this little tyke Aang had to learn how to bend the other elements but only got as far as element #2 of 4 when previously he already had #1 down pat.So we have these Wonder-Twin siblings, Katara (Peltz) and Sokka (Rathbone) who are out hunting for food when they stumble upon the 1000-year missing Avatar, Aang, trapped in the ice with his faithful giant flying dog straight out of The Neverending Story. He's wanted by The Fire People for reasons that shift constantly throughout the movie.And this is where it gets somewhat funny and eventually tedious: he's captured 4-5 times and always thwarts them to where you have to wonder if each time he's caught, that was the end to one TV episode with the words "To Be Continued" even though you know he'll be freed the next week.This back and forth prisoner must learn the bending of the other elements so he can truly be the Avatar, or the only one who can bend all elements and bring harmony to the world of fantasy. But, instead of reaching that goal, they simply end with the obligatory final battle accompanied with a "heartfelt" message of "Why can't we all just get along?"I guess I could recommend this to the under-five crowd for the somewhat "feel-good" message – mostly on how to stay away from fire since it burns, and for the semi-good special effects. But for anyone six and above, just skip. Skip it like the movie skips all over globe too many times.

A Very Amateurish Kid Flick, Not Worthy of the Series or the M. Knight's Reputation

tt0938283

I know my kids love the Avatar Nickelodeon animated series. Ever since there were ads for this live-action feature film, they had been very excited to watch. Despite all the negative reviews this film had been receiving, there was no way I could convince my kids not to watch. So off we went this afternoon to check it out.I only had a fleeting idea about what the TV series was about. The movie simplifies things a lot. My kids seem to recognize all the major events that were happening, so I guess it was faithful. They did have complaints, like mispronounced names and changed story lines. Or how Prince Zuko and Iroh looked different from how they were on TV. I would not really know, so I cannot comment any further about those gripes.I could comment though that the treatment of the story was really very juvenile, and even amateurish. The TV series looked very different from how darkly it was portrayed on the big screen. The film's wretched acting and dorky dialog were reminiscent of some insipid Disney TV movies. I found the "bending" movements to be excessively out of sync with how the element being "bended" was acting. I am so glad we did not catch this on 3D.I must say M. Night's career continues to spiral downward with this directorial effort. He had some pretty awesome and highly multi-cultural material on hand with this, with very high potential for a film epic. Instead, we get a film that felt shallow and childish, with little sense of wonder.This is the first of three in a series. I am still optimistic that the appropriate corrections will be made to make the second and third films much better than how this first film turned out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-687

ur4294858

title: A Very Amateurish Kid Flick, Not Worthy of the Series or the M. Knight's Reputation review: I know my kids love the Avatar Nickelodeon animated series. Ever since there were ads for this live-action feature film, they had been very excited to watch. Despite all the negative reviews this film had been receiving, there was no way I could convince my kids not to watch. So off we went this afternoon to check it out.I only had a fleeting idea about what the TV series was about. The movie simplifies things a lot. My kids seem to recognize all the major events that were happening, so I guess it was faithful. They did have complaints, like mispronounced names and changed story lines. Or how Prince Zuko and Iroh looked different from how they were on TV. I would not really know, so I cannot comment any further about those gripes.I could comment though that the treatment of the story was really very juvenile, and even amateurish. The TV series looked very different from how darkly it was portrayed on the big screen. The film's wretched acting and dorky dialog were reminiscent of some insipid Disney TV movies. I found the "bending" movements to be excessively out of sync with how the element being "bended" was acting. I am so glad we did not catch this on 3D.I must say M. Night's career continues to spiral downward with this directorial effort. He had some pretty awesome and highly multi-cultural material on hand with this, with very high potential for a film epic. Instead, we get a film that felt shallow and childish, with little sense of wonder.This is the first of three in a series. I am still optimistic that the appropriate corrections will be made to make the second and third films much better than how this first film turned out.

I think it's great

tt0938283

This is a high budget rendition of a fantasy story in the tradition of ancient China. It has great special effects and such creative bits as the hero escapes from a boat by opening a kite, running along and jumping off the boat whereupon he glides away to safety. Another pleasant surprise is that the film is in English so there's no poorly dubbed dialog. Some object to the violence in the film, come on folks, it's a kung fu film. The main characters are played by enchanting young actors instead of "big name" stars. This gives a nice freshness to the film. It's not another burned out Hollywood blockbuster without any real story. You may like this film or hate it but I defy anyone to be indifferent to it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1334

ur31492955

title: I think it's great review: This is a high budget rendition of a fantasy story in the tradition of ancient China. It has great special effects and such creative bits as the hero escapes from a boat by opening a kite, running along and jumping off the boat whereupon he glides away to safety. Another pleasant surprise is that the film is in English so there's no poorly dubbed dialog. Some object to the violence in the film, come on folks, it's a kung fu film. The main characters are played by enchanting young actors instead of "big name" stars. This gives a nice freshness to the film. It's not another burned out Hollywood blockbuster without any real story. You may like this film or hate it but I defy anyone to be indifferent to it.

Pray to God that it is the Last - 19%

tt0938283

I won't pretend that I'm familiar with the source material or anything so in that respect, it would appear that I'm actually at an advantage for once. Not that it matters a great deal - this is one of those notoriously bad movies, cemented by its five Razzie awards. Normally, I wouldn't touch this with a bargepole but seeing as I was foolishly experimenting with my Sky+ box and recording any old garbage on TV, old garbage was exactly what I got. Still, lesson learnt.Based on the Nickelodeon TV series "Avatar", the story introduces us to a world where four rival kingdoms exist side by side - Air, Water, Earth and Fire. They are kept in check by Avatars who have the power to bend all four elements but when the current Avatar disappears, the Fire Kingdom begins to wage war against the others. Fast forward a hundred years and two children Sokka and Katara (Jackson Rathbone and Nicola Peltz) discover a strange bald child encased in ice with a big furry creature. As Aang (Noah Ringer) begins to realise his destiny, he finds the path to becoming the Avatar is not as easy as everyone thinks and certainly not when Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) seeks to capture the Avatar for a chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the villainous Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis).It's difficult to know where to start so I'll just rattle off a list of things that are wrong with "The Last Airbender". The three lead heroes are immensely irritating, worse than Jar Jar Binks on helium. Not only that but they aren't even the same race as the characters in the show. The effects are woeful - fire never burns people and water doesn't get people wet. The plot is slashed to hell as nothing makes sense and characters aren't allowed to develop even remotely. The dialogue is utter tripe, full of clunky lines delivered with all the passion and enthusiasm of a drive-in fast-food worker. I can't comment on the 3D effects because I never bother with the damn thing but the dodgy last-minute conversion hasn't done it any favour, blanketing what might have been a very pretty picture under a gloomy darkness. Director M. Night Shyalaman desperately needed a hit but sadly, he has delivered the mother of all turkeys. It isn't fun, entertaining, exciting, well thought-out or enjoyable in any way - I've had detentions that were more fun.But personally the biggest thing that sticks in my craw, and the fact that I cannot get over, is that this dreadfully bad, grim excuse of a family movie cost an estimated $150 million dollars. Think about that for a moment - $150 million dollars could build hospitals, schools, fund cancer research. Basically, you could do a lot of good with that amount of money and yet, M. Night Shyalaman was allowed to create something evil. The presumption of success (illustrated by the belief that sequels will inevitably follow, judging by the "Book 1" title card) frankly smacks of arrogance. If you're a fan of the "Avatar" TV show then take another 10% off the score and stick with the series. If you're a fan of films, adventure, excitement or even anything other than commercials and snuff movies then you probably won't find much worse than this unless you're trying.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1228

ur3035115

title: Pray to God that it is the Last - 19% review: I won't pretend that I'm familiar with the source material or anything so in that respect, it would appear that I'm actually at an advantage for once. Not that it matters a great deal - this is one of those notoriously bad movies, cemented by its five Razzie awards. Normally, I wouldn't touch this with a bargepole but seeing as I was foolishly experimenting with my Sky+ box and recording any old garbage on TV, old garbage was exactly what I got. Still, lesson learnt.Based on the Nickelodeon TV series "Avatar", the story introduces us to a world where four rival kingdoms exist side by side - Air, Water, Earth and Fire. They are kept in check by Avatars who have the power to bend all four elements but when the current Avatar disappears, the Fire Kingdom begins to wage war against the others. Fast forward a hundred years and two children Sokka and Katara (Jackson Rathbone and Nicola Peltz) discover a strange bald child encased in ice with a big furry creature. As Aang (Noah Ringer) begins to realise his destiny, he finds the path to becoming the Avatar is not as easy as everyone thinks and certainly not when Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) seeks to capture the Avatar for a chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the villainous Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis).It's difficult to know where to start so I'll just rattle off a list of things that are wrong with "The Last Airbender". The three lead heroes are immensely irritating, worse than Jar Jar Binks on helium. Not only that but they aren't even the same race as the characters in the show. The effects are woeful - fire never burns people and water doesn't get people wet. The plot is slashed to hell as nothing makes sense and characters aren't allowed to develop even remotely. The dialogue is utter tripe, full of clunky lines delivered with all the passion and enthusiasm of a drive-in fast-food worker. I can't comment on the 3D effects because I never bother with the damn thing but the dodgy last-minute conversion hasn't done it any favour, blanketing what might have been a very pretty picture under a gloomy darkness. Director M. Night Shyalaman desperately needed a hit but sadly, he has delivered the mother of all turkeys. It isn't fun, entertaining, exciting, well thought-out or enjoyable in any way - I've had detentions that were more fun.But personally the biggest thing that sticks in my craw, and the fact that I cannot get over, is that this dreadfully bad, grim excuse of a family movie cost an estimated $150 million dollars. Think about that for a moment - $150 million dollars could build hospitals, schools, fund cancer research. Basically, you could do a lot of good with that amount of money and yet, M. Night Shyalaman was allowed to create something evil. The presumption of success (illustrated by the belief that sequels will inevitably follow, judging by the "Book 1" title card) frankly smacks of arrogance. If you're a fan of the "Avatar" TV show then take another 10% off the score and stick with the series. If you're a fan of films, adventure, excitement or even anything other than commercials and snuff movies then you probably won't find much worse than this unless you're trying.

Well... that was an experience

tt0938283

...in how NOT to make a movie.I went to see this film at 7:30 today at the request of a friend. I decided to give it a go. What could go wrong? Admitted, the trailers hadn't impressed me too much, but I did at least like the visuals, and the concept of four nations based on elements living in an alternate world (I have not seen the original cartoon, by the way). And while Shyamalan may have had a slump recently in the thriller genre, perhaps this would get his creative mojo working again.Turns out he just made a 100-minute endurance test.I'm not sure how to put my thoughts together, because so many went through my head as I was watching this. I guess I should start by saying that while I was watching this, I almost never cared for the characters. The film starts, and we're immediately dumped into this situation of a brother and a sister (Katara and Sokka) who suddenly find this "Avatar," a person with the power to unite the four elemental nations, in peace. They take this Avatar to their village, but no sooner does that happen than the evil Fire Nation comes and kidnaps this Avatar. The brother and sister then decide they must save him- Let me stop right there. Are you noticing something? Because what I noticed at that point was that I wasn't sure why I should be caring. Who are these people? What are their lives like? Introductory words and title cards can only do so much. And so it goes on for the rest of the movies. Characters like the Grandmother and Princess Yue only appear to advance the plot (and the "romance" between Yue and Sokka is very awkwardly handled). Aang's (the Avatar's) powers aren't fully explained either. What's with the dragon in his dreams? Why, when he gets into a fight with Zuko (one of the members of the Fire Nation), does he choose to wrestle with him instead of, you know, BLOWING HIM AWAY WITH AIR? I could go on with the questions, but then I would be creating a laundry list. Suffice so say, too many things in this picture aren't well explained. Actually, there is one more thing I must ask: why is the Fire Nation kind of tame? I'm sorry, but I wasn't very scared by these guys. They're called the Fire Nation, yet they use spears most of the times for weapons. When they do use fire, it doesn't seem to cause much damage (the city at the end of the climax, despite being under heavy siege, seems quite intact). Not even Dev Patel, the best thing about 2008's "Slumdog Millionaire," can save them.Which now brings me to the acting and the dialogue. Bluntly put, it's not good. I can't think of any worthwhile performances. And the dialogue the characters say to each other is frequently stilted and unnatural. Considering how strong both elements were in "The Sixth Sense," it is very disappointing to see that M. Night Shyamalan has seemingly lost mastery of this.Are there any positives? Well, I suppose I liked looking at the movie. The camera likes to linger on the landscape, the production values are pretty good, and the special effects sometimes impress. We see wind blow people away like rag dolls, water suddenly rise and freeze around objects, and a giant tidal wave at the end that acts, not as a force for destruction, but for order and peace. Unfortunately, more attention should have been put to where it would matter the most: the screenplay. I'm one hour removed from watching this movie, and already I'm having trouble remember what the point of it was. Thank goodness I did not pay extra money to watch this in 3-D (I have a feeling that, after Paramount saw this movie and realized its lack of quality, they decided at the last second to convert this so they could try to make back their budget). Final verdict? This isn't worth your time in 2-D or 3-D. Not unless you want to learn how not to make a movie. And when you do see this, study and learn. Remember to set up your characters and story. Remember to give a purpose to every event and not have your plot go around your circles. Remember to give your characters agency, and not have them just act as plot points. Remember to make your audience care for your story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-132

ur16416022

title: Well... that was an experience review: ...in how NOT to make a movie.I went to see this film at 7:30 today at the request of a friend. I decided to give it a go. What could go wrong? Admitted, the trailers hadn't impressed me too much, but I did at least like the visuals, and the concept of four nations based on elements living in an alternate world (I have not seen the original cartoon, by the way). And while Shyamalan may have had a slump recently in the thriller genre, perhaps this would get his creative mojo working again.Turns out he just made a 100-minute endurance test.I'm not sure how to put my thoughts together, because so many went through my head as I was watching this. I guess I should start by saying that while I was watching this, I almost never cared for the characters. The film starts, and we're immediately dumped into this situation of a brother and a sister (Katara and Sokka) who suddenly find this "Avatar," a person with the power to unite the four elemental nations, in peace. They take this Avatar to their village, but no sooner does that happen than the evil Fire Nation comes and kidnaps this Avatar. The brother and sister then decide they must save him- Let me stop right there. Are you noticing something? Because what I noticed at that point was that I wasn't sure why I should be caring. Who are these people? What are their lives like? Introductory words and title cards can only do so much. And so it goes on for the rest of the movies. Characters like the Grandmother and Princess Yue only appear to advance the plot (and the "romance" between Yue and Sokka is very awkwardly handled). Aang's (the Avatar's) powers aren't fully explained either. What's with the dragon in his dreams? Why, when he gets into a fight with Zuko (one of the members of the Fire Nation), does he choose to wrestle with him instead of, you know, BLOWING HIM AWAY WITH AIR? I could go on with the questions, but then I would be creating a laundry list. Suffice so say, too many things in this picture aren't well explained. Actually, there is one more thing I must ask: why is the Fire Nation kind of tame? I'm sorry, but I wasn't very scared by these guys. They're called the Fire Nation, yet they use spears most of the times for weapons. When they do use fire, it doesn't seem to cause much damage (the city at the end of the climax, despite being under heavy siege, seems quite intact). Not even Dev Patel, the best thing about 2008's "Slumdog Millionaire," can save them.Which now brings me to the acting and the dialogue. Bluntly put, it's not good. I can't think of any worthwhile performances. And the dialogue the characters say to each other is frequently stilted and unnatural. Considering how strong both elements were in "The Sixth Sense," it is very disappointing to see that M. Night Shyamalan has seemingly lost mastery of this.Are there any positives? Well, I suppose I liked looking at the movie. The camera likes to linger on the landscape, the production values are pretty good, and the special effects sometimes impress. We see wind blow people away like rag dolls, water suddenly rise and freeze around objects, and a giant tidal wave at the end that acts, not as a force for destruction, but for order and peace. Unfortunately, more attention should have been put to where it would matter the most: the screenplay. I'm one hour removed from watching this movie, and already I'm having trouble remember what the point of it was. Thank goodness I did not pay extra money to watch this in 3-D (I have a feeling that, after Paramount saw this movie and realized its lack of quality, they decided at the last second to convert this so they could try to make back their budget). Final verdict? This isn't worth your time in 2-D or 3-D. Not unless you want to learn how not to make a movie. And when you do see this, study and learn. Remember to set up your characters and story. Remember to give a purpose to every event and not have your plot go around your circles. Remember to give your characters agency, and not have them just act as plot points. Remember to make your audience care for your story.

Bender me this, Bender!

tt0938283

What is a Bender? 1) The petulant anarchist Judd Nelson in THE BREAKFAST CLUB; 2) The alcoholic, kleptomaniac robot in FUTURAMA; 3) a homosexual man; 4) getting stoned on alcohol or drugs for a sustained period of time; 5) an exceptionally bad hockey player; 6) a tumescent penis; 7) a curveball; 8) to crap oneself; 9) a person who can affect the elements at will; 10) the act of vomiting.Night has fallen.During his worst slumps, I have stood up for writer-producer-director M. Night Shyamalan as being a magnificent visual storyteller, an artiste, a visionary, a bender (9). But now he's just a bender (3).It seems in trying to cram THE LAST AIRBENDER with lore from the manga TV series AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER, and in juggling the ubiquitous special effects, it was all too much for Night to handle, resulting in him having a bender (8).Disjointed, badly-acted and - surprisingly - badly directed, AIRBENDER takes place on a world different from the Earth we know, as it follows a brother and sister from Water Nation, Katara (pert Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (vapid Jackson Rathbone) as they aid the last of the ancient airbenders, young Aang (Noah Ringer) in his quest to unite the five warring Nations, named after the five elements of Water, Air, Fire, Earth and Lame Special Effects.Aang can bend the air to his desire, creating tornadoes, walls of force, lethal destruction, and has the potential to bend all other elements; that's the power you inherit from having an arrow tattooed on your head. Or something.For the second time in his career, Night has populated his film with non-actors (as in THE HAPPENING), and I'm wondering exactly when he is going to notice. Noah Ringer is the only passable performer in the movie, and rides around on a big furry thing that escaped from Maurice Sendak's WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. The interrelationships between Noah and the other humans are so vapid and uninvolving, we don't really care what happens to anyone. It's like Night let someone else direct the interaction between his principals and went off on a bender (4).I feel sorry for Dev Patel, who kickstarted an international career in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, and is now here, traveling the world through special effects and trying to act his way out of them. He plays ostracized Prince Zuko of Fire Nation. Like a bender (1). With his gang from Rydell High School, the T-Birds, he tries to capture Aang and the heart of Olivia Newton-John.Sokka becomes a sucker for Princess Yue and has a kiddie romance with her like a bender (3, 5, 6).Movie throws us a bender (7) when we realize Prince Zuko's father (ominous Cliff Curtis) has sent out Commander Zhao (THE DAILY SHOW's Aasif Mandvi) to capture Aang in a race against his own son, which Zhao does with the lust of a bender (2).Night actually leaves us with a cliffhanger - it's sad and pathetic and a bender (10) all at once - like he will ever get the funding to make a sequel.Verdict: M. Night Shyamalan's THE LAST AIRBENDER is a bender. Know what I mean?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1203

ur2446936

title: Bender me this, Bender! review: What is a Bender? 1) The petulant anarchist Judd Nelson in THE BREAKFAST CLUB; 2) The alcoholic, kleptomaniac robot in FUTURAMA; 3) a homosexual man; 4) getting stoned on alcohol or drugs for a sustained period of time; 5) an exceptionally bad hockey player; 6) a tumescent penis; 7) a curveball; 8) to crap oneself; 9) a person who can affect the elements at will; 10) the act of vomiting.Night has fallen.During his worst slumps, I have stood up for writer-producer-director M. Night Shyamalan as being a magnificent visual storyteller, an artiste, a visionary, a bender (9). But now he's just a bender (3).It seems in trying to cram THE LAST AIRBENDER with lore from the manga TV series AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER, and in juggling the ubiquitous special effects, it was all too much for Night to handle, resulting in him having a bender (8).Disjointed, badly-acted and - surprisingly - badly directed, AIRBENDER takes place on a world different from the Earth we know, as it follows a brother and sister from Water Nation, Katara (pert Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (vapid Jackson Rathbone) as they aid the last of the ancient airbenders, young Aang (Noah Ringer) in his quest to unite the five warring Nations, named after the five elements of Water, Air, Fire, Earth and Lame Special Effects.Aang can bend the air to his desire, creating tornadoes, walls of force, lethal destruction, and has the potential to bend all other elements; that's the power you inherit from having an arrow tattooed on your head. Or something.For the second time in his career, Night has populated his film with non-actors (as in THE HAPPENING), and I'm wondering exactly when he is going to notice. Noah Ringer is the only passable performer in the movie, and rides around on a big furry thing that escaped from Maurice Sendak's WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. The interrelationships between Noah and the other humans are so vapid and uninvolving, we don't really care what happens to anyone. It's like Night let someone else direct the interaction between his principals and went off on a bender (4).I feel sorry for Dev Patel, who kickstarted an international career in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, and is now here, traveling the world through special effects and trying to act his way out of them. He plays ostracized Prince Zuko of Fire Nation. Like a bender (1). With his gang from Rydell High School, the T-Birds, he tries to capture Aang and the heart of Olivia Newton-John.Sokka becomes a sucker for Princess Yue and has a kiddie romance with her like a bender (3, 5, 6).Movie throws us a bender (7) when we realize Prince Zuko's father (ominous Cliff Curtis) has sent out Commander Zhao (THE DAILY SHOW's Aasif Mandvi) to capture Aang in a race against his own son, which Zhao does with the lust of a bender (2).Night actually leaves us with a cliffhanger - it's sad and pathetic and a bender (10) all at once - like he will ever get the funding to make a sequel.Verdict: M. Night Shyamalan's THE LAST AIRBENDER is a bender. Know what I mean?

The Last Fartbender *SPOILERS

tt0938283

I thought there could be something cool with the idea of doing something with the four elements and a Kung Fu fantasy (a la' 'Crouching Tiger/ Hidden Dragon'), but this piece of sh*t should be burned, banished and bent! Bad directing, really bad writing, bad acting; the only thing worthwhile were the sets and the scenery. I agree with the majority here that no one involved in the creative processes of writing, or directing should ever work in this medium again! They have no sense of story in this impossible-to-follow film. What a waste of money. When you see a big budget looking film like this, you wonder who the brain fried weasels were that green-lighted the final cut. They need to be fired! This is the worst film I've seen in years.SAVE YOURSELVES! DON'T RENT THIS PIECE OF CRAP!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1077

ur9298500

title: The Last Fartbender *SPOILERS review: I thought there could be something cool with the idea of doing something with the four elements and a Kung Fu fantasy (a la' 'Crouching Tiger/ Hidden Dragon'), but this piece of sh*t should be burned, banished and bent! Bad directing, really bad writing, bad acting; the only thing worthwhile were the sets and the scenery. I agree with the majority here that no one involved in the creative processes of writing, or directing should ever work in this medium again! They have no sense of story in this impossible-to-follow film. What a waste of money. When you see a big budget looking film like this, you wonder who the brain fried weasels were that green-lighted the final cut. They need to be fired! This is the worst film I've seen in years.SAVE YOURSELVES! DON'T RENT THIS PIECE OF CRAP!

Oh! The tragedy...

tt0938283

Well, what can I say ???I remember a line reading in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. A line by Albus Dumbledore. Curiosity is not a sin but one should exercise caution. Why did I see it ??? After reading so many bad reviews why the h*** did I see it ???This movie is a slap to a wonderfully crafted 1 season. No character development. Aang (aah-ng), Soaka (soo-kah), Iroh (hee-roh), avatar (aah-va-taar) ??? What the h*** ??? They did not even get the names right. Where's King Bhoomi ??? Where's the fire-bending master ??? Where's the mustache for Monk Kiyatso ??? Where's the amazing back to back flashback of Zuko and Aang. Where's the huge Monster ???What is it with they want him to be the avatar ??? It's not a question of what they want ??? It doesn't even matter whether they want him as the avatar or not. He IS the avatar. Period. Second of all Aang struggling with water-bending ??? He has a natural talent and he does it with much more ease than Katara does in the beginning. Where's n the Comet scene ??? Where' Avatar Roku ??? Where's Jeti, Where's Sooki ??? Where's the fire temple ??? What the h*** happened to the Water Nation culture to which Katara objects ??? What happened to her healing abilities. And why does Aang controls the avatar state with much ease at the end of the movie ??? He never did learn to control his avatar state. At present his avatar state is triggered by anger depression. Most of all why Aang is depressed all the times. He should be lively and smiling all the time. Why Katara is not mothering all the time ??? And, why Soaka is so serious ??? Shall I keep going ???A film that had so much potential and so much life and had a chance to be different from others but only to be spoiled by M.Night Shyamalan and Paramount Studios. Yes, I blame the studios as well as they are the ones producing this film and failed very deeply to produce it up to the satisfaction of the audience. The best advice that came be given is better stop now itself before doing anymore damage to the remaining to seasons. Or let them bring in a new director who can understand the entire show and reboot the entire franchise from scratch and pay attention to details this time at least. After all second chance is given to everybody. Though for M.Night Shyamalan it must be the fifth chance.Get bent, Shyalaman for utterly ruining one of my favorite animation series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1041

ur8049104

title: Oh! The tragedy... review: Well, what can I say ???I remember a line reading in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. A line by Albus Dumbledore. Curiosity is not a sin but one should exercise caution. Why did I see it ??? After reading so many bad reviews why the h*** did I see it ???This movie is a slap to a wonderfully crafted 1 season. No character development. Aang (aah-ng), Soaka (soo-kah), Iroh (hee-roh), avatar (aah-va-taar) ??? What the h*** ??? They did not even get the names right. Where's King Bhoomi ??? Where's the fire-bending master ??? Where's the mustache for Monk Kiyatso ??? Where's the amazing back to back flashback of Zuko and Aang. Where's the huge Monster ???What is it with they want him to be the avatar ??? It's not a question of what they want ??? It doesn't even matter whether they want him as the avatar or not. He IS the avatar. Period. Second of all Aang struggling with water-bending ??? He has a natural talent and he does it with much more ease than Katara does in the beginning. Where's n the Comet scene ??? Where' Avatar Roku ??? Where's Jeti, Where's Sooki ??? Where's the fire temple ??? What the h*** happened to the Water Nation culture to which Katara objects ??? What happened to her healing abilities. And why does Aang controls the avatar state with much ease at the end of the movie ??? He never did learn to control his avatar state. At present his avatar state is triggered by anger depression. Most of all why Aang is depressed all the times. He should be lively and smiling all the time. Why Katara is not mothering all the time ??? And, why Soaka is so serious ??? Shall I keep going ???A film that had so much potential and so much life and had a chance to be different from others but only to be spoiled by M.Night Shyamalan and Paramount Studios. Yes, I blame the studios as well as they are the ones producing this film and failed very deeply to produce it up to the satisfaction of the audience. The best advice that came be given is better stop now itself before doing anymore damage to the remaining to seasons. Or let them bring in a new director who can understand the entire show and reboot the entire franchise from scratch and pay attention to details this time at least. After all second chance is given to everybody. Though for M.Night Shyamalan it must be the fifth chance.Get bent, Shyalaman for utterly ruining one of my favorite animation series.

Four nations, one destiny

tt0938283

Air, Water, Earth, Fire. Four nations tied by destiny when the Fire Nation launches a brutal war against the others. A century has passed with no hope in sight to change the path of this destruction. Caught between combat and courage, Aang discovers he is the lone Avatar with the power to manipulate all four elements. Aang teams with Katara, a Waterbender, and her brother, Sokka, to restore balance to their war-torn world. Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, the live-action feature film The Last Airbender is the opening chapter in Aang's struggle to survive. --© ParamountI have never seen so much hate unfairly lashed upon a film that didn't deserve it. I have to say this now: Coming from someone who hasn't seen the cartoon series that the film is based on, TLA is not a bad film...at all. I would even bet my life that people who hated M. Night Shyamalan's last two films (which is quite a lot) would enjoy this film a whole lot more because it's his most commercial film to date. For those who are a fan of the show, let's talk about that later.Let's start off with the things that were bad. Season one of the TV show runs barely under 500 minutes long. The film, on the other hand, runs about 90-95 minutes long without credits, which cuts about 80% from the show. You see the problem already? With such a short running time, especially for an adaptation (which, in my opinion, should be at least two hours), it's only appropriate to expect the dialogue to be filled with exposition. Imagine this: What's the fastest way to present a load of information to an audience in such a short amount of time? Just tell them right up front, of course! It was awkward at first, but I quickly got used to it after the first ten minutes. Sure, while it's a bit "elementary" for a screenwriter to "tell, not show," it's not as problematic as people make it out to be. But, then again, it may be just me.Because of the explanatory dialogue, the film's characters are developed as much as what they say. They are not as multi-layered and complex as the characters in a Pixar film. They are just presented in the most simplistic way with the most common emotions. It's clear and to the point that you just have to go along with it (if you're willing to). The film also suffers from inconsistent pacing. The film is a bit fast paced AND slow paced in different parts of the film, which is odd, even for an M. Night film. It was fast paced because the film presented a wealth of information in such a short period of time and when the film finally slows down, it meanders.The characters, on the other hand, I quite enjoyed. This is where the positives come in. Noah Ringer is as good as Daniel Radcliffe in his first Harry Potter film, which isn't saying much but it's good enough for me. His karate moves, however, are very excellent, which makes one wonder he was chosen for that aspect than his acting aspect. I liked Nicola Peltz a lot because she played such a "bad ass" character. I just love her angry face because she looked like she was about to rip out someone's heart! Hey, she's a better role model for teen girls out there than Bella Swan. Jackson Rathbone is, uh, interesting. At times, he's decent, but, at others, he's very awkward when delivering some lines. Dev Patel plays your typical "threatening voice" villain who I hope will be more fleshed out in the sequels. Shaun Toub seems to be the best of the bunch as Zuko's heartfelt uncle.On a technical level, the film is pretty much perfect. The sets, costume designs, and visual effects are all commendable. I thought it was fascinating to see another mythical world, other than Hogwarts. The action sequences are pretty amazing. Adding on to the fact that most are single shots is pretty fantastic. Say what you want about M. Night but he knows how to orchestrate an action scene. The soundtrack by James Newton Howard is brilliant as always. For those avid soundtrack collectors, try listening to "Flow Like Water."Overall, while the film is not as good as the HARRY POTTER and the LORD OF THE RINGS films, it's certainly not as bad as other adaptations, including THE GOLDEN COMPASS, INKHEART, ERAGON, and THE SEEKER. For a director who usually makes slow burning small films, I was impressed with what M. Night did here. I was thoroughly engaged and entertained throughout and found the world of TLA to be captivating. I will admit that the film certainly could have been better but it's really not as bad as people and critics make it out to be. I think fans of the show would find the film more problematic than others because I would imagine many changes were made for the film. Otherwise, go see the film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-348

ur8334868

title: Four nations, one destiny review: Air, Water, Earth, Fire. Four nations tied by destiny when the Fire Nation launches a brutal war against the others. A century has passed with no hope in sight to change the path of this destruction. Caught between combat and courage, Aang discovers he is the lone Avatar with the power to manipulate all four elements. Aang teams with Katara, a Waterbender, and her brother, Sokka, to restore balance to their war-torn world. Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, the live-action feature film The Last Airbender is the opening chapter in Aang's struggle to survive. --© ParamountI have never seen so much hate unfairly lashed upon a film that didn't deserve it. I have to say this now: Coming from someone who hasn't seen the cartoon series that the film is based on, TLA is not a bad film...at all. I would even bet my life that people who hated M. Night Shyamalan's last two films (which is quite a lot) would enjoy this film a whole lot more because it's his most commercial film to date. For those who are a fan of the show, let's talk about that later.Let's start off with the things that were bad. Season one of the TV show runs barely under 500 minutes long. The film, on the other hand, runs about 90-95 minutes long without credits, which cuts about 80% from the show. You see the problem already? With such a short running time, especially for an adaptation (which, in my opinion, should be at least two hours), it's only appropriate to expect the dialogue to be filled with exposition. Imagine this: What's the fastest way to present a load of information to an audience in such a short amount of time? Just tell them right up front, of course! It was awkward at first, but I quickly got used to it after the first ten minutes. Sure, while it's a bit "elementary" for a screenwriter to "tell, not show," it's not as problematic as people make it out to be. But, then again, it may be just me.Because of the explanatory dialogue, the film's characters are developed as much as what they say. They are not as multi-layered and complex as the characters in a Pixar film. They are just presented in the most simplistic way with the most common emotions. It's clear and to the point that you just have to go along with it (if you're willing to). The film also suffers from inconsistent pacing. The film is a bit fast paced AND slow paced in different parts of the film, which is odd, even for an M. Night film. It was fast paced because the film presented a wealth of information in such a short period of time and when the film finally slows down, it meanders.The characters, on the other hand, I quite enjoyed. This is where the positives come in. Noah Ringer is as good as Daniel Radcliffe in his first Harry Potter film, which isn't saying much but it's good enough for me. His karate moves, however, are very excellent, which makes one wonder he was chosen for that aspect than his acting aspect. I liked Nicola Peltz a lot because she played such a "bad ass" character. I just love her angry face because she looked like she was about to rip out someone's heart! Hey, she's a better role model for teen girls out there than Bella Swan. Jackson Rathbone is, uh, interesting. At times, he's decent, but, at others, he's very awkward when delivering some lines. Dev Patel plays your typical "threatening voice" villain who I hope will be more fleshed out in the sequels. Shaun Toub seems to be the best of the bunch as Zuko's heartfelt uncle.On a technical level, the film is pretty much perfect. The sets, costume designs, and visual effects are all commendable. I thought it was fascinating to see another mythical world, other than Hogwarts. The action sequences are pretty amazing. Adding on to the fact that most are single shots is pretty fantastic. Say what you want about M. Night but he knows how to orchestrate an action scene. The soundtrack by James Newton Howard is brilliant as always. For those avid soundtrack collectors, try listening to "Flow Like Water."Overall, while the film is not as good as the HARRY POTTER and the LORD OF THE RINGS films, it's certainly not as bad as other adaptations, including THE GOLDEN COMPASS, INKHEART, ERAGON, and THE SEEKER. For a director who usually makes slow burning small films, I was impressed with what M. Night did here. I was thoroughly engaged and entertained throughout and found the world of TLA to be captivating. I will admit that the film certainly could have been better but it's really not as bad as people and critics make it out to be. I think fans of the show would find the film more problematic than others because I would imagine many changes were made for the film. Otherwise, go see the film.

I actually fell asleep during the movie!

tt0938283

I remember up to about where the attack on the water people's fortress began and then everything is a blank after that.Which is ironic, because the story I did watch up to that point was so thinly developed and presented that it might as well have been a TV testcard that they showed.I have no knowledge of the animated series that predates this and now, thanks to this turkey, I likely will never be able to steel myself to watch that undoubtedly superior show.I really don't know what to say about M Night Shyamalan. Everything he touches seems to turn into either an awful adaptation, or something worthy that invites endless ridicule. Yet still he finds work, writing and directing.Acting was poor throughout the film and the story was delivered so blandly that you could not care less about it if you tried. Add in flying goat-beaver and what you have seems to be trying to recapture some of the magic of movies like The Neverending Story. In this case, though, neverending is the feeling you get throughout the movie, and not in a good way. The opening forty minutes or so seemed to crawl by so slowly that I felt sure the film had been on for over an hour. Imagine my (unpleasant) surprise when I found out how much more there was to go! Not to worry, though. My "dull-as-ditchwater" brain defence mechanism kicked in a short while later and rendered me unconscious, thus saving me from watching the whole thing.I will say, however, that the special effects were generally pretty good and there was some decent production design as well. Acting, story, pace, endless narration and everything else combined to make this an impossible film to sit through.As for the narration... If you constantly need to interrupt a movie in order to explain what is happening it merely means one thing. You have (as a film-maker) done it wrong. Constant narration just tells your audience that you have tried to make a film you are not capable of making, or which is to ambitious to be crammed into two hours. There is also the old adage of "show, don't tell" in storytelling which is also valid here.For someone with no background knowledge on this franchise, the thing is just a confused mess. I'm sure those more knowledgeable made sense of it, but I doubt they liked it any better than I did.SUMMARY: An awful mess of bad dialogue, acting and pacing. I doubt anyone involved with this had any idea what they were doing, except for the special effects and production design guys. Avoid it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1431

ur1980092

title: I actually fell asleep during the movie! review: I remember up to about where the attack on the water people's fortress began and then everything is a blank after that.Which is ironic, because the story I did watch up to that point was so thinly developed and presented that it might as well have been a TV testcard that they showed.I have no knowledge of the animated series that predates this and now, thanks to this turkey, I likely will never be able to steel myself to watch that undoubtedly superior show.I really don't know what to say about M Night Shyamalan. Everything he touches seems to turn into either an awful adaptation, or something worthy that invites endless ridicule. Yet still he finds work, writing and directing.Acting was poor throughout the film and the story was delivered so blandly that you could not care less about it if you tried. Add in flying goat-beaver and what you have seems to be trying to recapture some of the magic of movies like The Neverending Story. In this case, though, neverending is the feeling you get throughout the movie, and not in a good way. The opening forty minutes or so seemed to crawl by so slowly that I felt sure the film had been on for over an hour. Imagine my (unpleasant) surprise when I found out how much more there was to go! Not to worry, though. My "dull-as-ditchwater" brain defence mechanism kicked in a short while later and rendered me unconscious, thus saving me from watching the whole thing.I will say, however, that the special effects were generally pretty good and there was some decent production design as well. Acting, story, pace, endless narration and everything else combined to make this an impossible film to sit through.As for the narration... If you constantly need to interrupt a movie in order to explain what is happening it merely means one thing. You have (as a film-maker) done it wrong. Constant narration just tells your audience that you have tried to make a film you are not capable of making, or which is to ambitious to be crammed into two hours. There is also the old adage of "show, don't tell" in storytelling which is also valid here.For someone with no background knowledge on this franchise, the thing is just a confused mess. I'm sure those more knowledgeable made sense of it, but I doubt they liked it any better than I did.SUMMARY: An awful mess of bad dialogue, acting and pacing. I doubt anyone involved with this had any idea what they were doing, except for the special effects and production design guys. Avoid it.

Overwhelming

tt0938283

Overwhelming action, powerful images, appalling visual effects. One of the best (if not the best) computer made movies I've ever seen, able to rivet your attention from the beginning to the end. This movie belongs to the history fiction species, a subspecies of sci-fi. The action takes place in a fictitious world (on some other planet?) in a mediaeval-like atmosphere in this case mixed up with awful huge monsters and characters with superpowers. A few complementary ingredients are the references to an oriental Buddhist-like philosophy, the characteristic Buddhist-line monks and the Asian features of some characters and extras. The story is worth what all stories of this kind are worth with the usual war between an empire governed by a dictator and a peaceful benevolent one. It's the old struggle between good and evil. In this case it purports the originality of putting on the two opposite fields the four traditional classic elements of matter: water, air and earth on the good side and fire on the evil one. It's worth to be seen at least for the visual aspects. And the last scene suggests that the saga will continue in some further movie or movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-785

ur1046460

title: Overwhelming review: Overwhelming action, powerful images, appalling visual effects. One of the best (if not the best) computer made movies I've ever seen, able to rivet your attention from the beginning to the end. This movie belongs to the history fiction species, a subspecies of sci-fi. The action takes place in a fictitious world (on some other planet?) in a mediaeval-like atmosphere in this case mixed up with awful huge monsters and characters with superpowers. A few complementary ingredients are the references to an oriental Buddhist-like philosophy, the characteristic Buddhist-line monks and the Asian features of some characters and extras. The story is worth what all stories of this kind are worth with the usual war between an empire governed by a dictator and a peaceful benevolent one. It's the old struggle between good and evil. In this case it purports the originality of putting on the two opposite fields the four traditional classic elements of matter: water, air and earth on the good side and fire on the evil one. It's worth to be seen at least for the visual aspects. And the last scene suggests that the saga will continue in some further movie or movies.

Shyamalan continues to do his best to kill fun at the movies

tt0938283

What is it about M. Night Shyamalan's latest film offering that is so abominable? Well, there's two fronts: there's the front of what's so terrible for people who watched and are fans of the Nickelodeon television series (arguably one of the most exciting and entertaining adventure shows, not just for kids but for anyone, in the past ten years), and then everyone else. M. Night makes his movies to aggravate and befuddle and p***-off people of all ages and races and creeds. Since Signs he's been getting worse, with varying degrees of unintentional hilarity and boredom to be found in his works. But this film, despite all of the bad buzz about it, was something I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt about. He's always had an at least somewhat interesting eye as a director (well, except for Lady in the Water), and with this being his first film not based on a script he wrote originally there was the potential for some artistic success and creativity. Did he succeed? Hell no.The movie takes the skeleton of the plot from the first season well enough, or at least some of the details. Aang (not pronounced how he was on the show for some stupid reason) is the last air bender of the title, found in a block of ice hibernating for 100 years, and is found by two members of the water bending tribe. The Avatar masters all four elements: earth, water, fire and air, and being that he has that last element down, he has to master the other three to become a full-blown Avatar. But, of course (for those who follow this), the fire-nation, who has been controlling the earth basically for a hundred years, has an eye on catching Aang, specifically the banished prince Zukko (Dev Patel). So that's the basic gist of the story, and there are a few obligatory characters carried over from the show (i.e. Uncle Iro). Is there much else? Not really. The humor of the show is gone, and anyone looking for just regular garden-variety comic relief will be disappointed. It doesn't help that the actors are either not good period (Jackson Rathbone), or are directed poorly (Noah, the lead playing Aang) and are lifeless in their roles. Where's the fun in doing these mastering-of- elements? It's one thing that the show had much more character and heart and humor, especially with Aang and Iro and especially Sokka (often laugh out loud, for adults not just kids), and that the movie disappoints on that front. But it's another that Shyamalan doesn't bring anything to the table of his own. His method is to drain anything of character except for what keeps the plot rolling along - and often, it feels as if the plot is cut apart, like the film was longer and was shredded over editing. That Shyamalan probably had final cut just makes this more infuriating.And where's the innovation, or just plain interest, in the action, which is what makes up the bulk of the runtime? How do you put a flying buffalo (Appa) and just use it as window-dressing? The end scene should have people cheering or feel uplifted, but feels stale in a way when it should work. At best, and this is a very faint 'at best', it's competently shot. Please know what I mean by 'competently' as in it's not shot like Battlefield Earth. It takes itself, ultimately, way too seriously to be taken seriously. Every line of dialog... is.. spoken.. like this, or faster sometimes too, and for every one or two moments when a kick or a punch is thrown that isn't too shabby, other twenty moments or so go by that boggle the mind. When Shyamalan starts taking off from Zack Snyder in action sequences, there's a big problem.It may not be as horrible as Lady in the Water (then again, few things short of widespread famine or E-coli could be), but it's not anything of real value. Kids may be impressed, but will they know any better at their age? The adults with them, or the adults going on their own as fans of the show or just fans of the kind of Asian-style mythology (albeit with mostly white-actors), will wonder what the hell has happened to this once promising filmmaker. It's equally dull, far-fetched, visually haphazard, withdrawn, funny from its lack of self-awareness, and filmed like it should be the next coming of cinematic profundity. Andy Warhol could've done a more exciting and invigorating job with the franchise. Three more points to close this out: 1) Don't see it in 3D; if it's not worth seeing in 2D, or even on DVD or TV, why shell the bucks for a film that wasn't even shot in the process to start with? 2) Asiff Mandvi appears as a supporting character. He either needs better material, or has to stick with the Daily Show as their (usually) Muslim correspondent. 3) The hubbub over the racial controversy with the casting is bunk; once you get past the fact that the water benders are white, everyone else is mixed with Asian and Middle Eastern/Indian ethnicities. That no one race or ethnicity can act here or is given anything to do is another matter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-403

ur0453068

title: Shyamalan continues to do his best to kill fun at the movies review: What is it about M. Night Shyamalan's latest film offering that is so abominable? Well, there's two fronts: there's the front of what's so terrible for people who watched and are fans of the Nickelodeon television series (arguably one of the most exciting and entertaining adventure shows, not just for kids but for anyone, in the past ten years), and then everyone else. M. Night makes his movies to aggravate and befuddle and p***-off people of all ages and races and creeds. Since Signs he's been getting worse, with varying degrees of unintentional hilarity and boredom to be found in his works. But this film, despite all of the bad buzz about it, was something I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt about. He's always had an at least somewhat interesting eye as a director (well, except for Lady in the Water), and with this being his first film not based on a script he wrote originally there was the potential for some artistic success and creativity. Did he succeed? Hell no.The movie takes the skeleton of the plot from the first season well enough, or at least some of the details. Aang (not pronounced how he was on the show for some stupid reason) is the last air bender of the title, found in a block of ice hibernating for 100 years, and is found by two members of the water bending tribe. The Avatar masters all four elements: earth, water, fire and air, and being that he has that last element down, he has to master the other three to become a full-blown Avatar. But, of course (for those who follow this), the fire-nation, who has been controlling the earth basically for a hundred years, has an eye on catching Aang, specifically the banished prince Zukko (Dev Patel). So that's the basic gist of the story, and there are a few obligatory characters carried over from the show (i.e. Uncle Iro). Is there much else? Not really. The humor of the show is gone, and anyone looking for just regular garden-variety comic relief will be disappointed. It doesn't help that the actors are either not good period (Jackson Rathbone), or are directed poorly (Noah, the lead playing Aang) and are lifeless in their roles. Where's the fun in doing these mastering-of- elements? It's one thing that the show had much more character and heart and humor, especially with Aang and Iro and especially Sokka (often laugh out loud, for adults not just kids), and that the movie disappoints on that front. But it's another that Shyamalan doesn't bring anything to the table of his own. His method is to drain anything of character except for what keeps the plot rolling along - and often, it feels as if the plot is cut apart, like the film was longer and was shredded over editing. That Shyamalan probably had final cut just makes this more infuriating.And where's the innovation, or just plain interest, in the action, which is what makes up the bulk of the runtime? How do you put a flying buffalo (Appa) and just use it as window-dressing? The end scene should have people cheering or feel uplifted, but feels stale in a way when it should work. At best, and this is a very faint 'at best', it's competently shot. Please know what I mean by 'competently' as in it's not shot like Battlefield Earth. It takes itself, ultimately, way too seriously to be taken seriously. Every line of dialog... is.. spoken.. like this, or faster sometimes too, and for every one or two moments when a kick or a punch is thrown that isn't too shabby, other twenty moments or so go by that boggle the mind. When Shyamalan starts taking off from Zack Snyder in action sequences, there's a big problem.It may not be as horrible as Lady in the Water (then again, few things short of widespread famine or E-coli could be), but it's not anything of real value. Kids may be impressed, but will they know any better at their age? The adults with them, or the adults going on their own as fans of the show or just fans of the kind of Asian-style mythology (albeit with mostly white-actors), will wonder what the hell has happened to this once promising filmmaker. It's equally dull, far-fetched, visually haphazard, withdrawn, funny from its lack of self-awareness, and filmed like it should be the next coming of cinematic profundity. Andy Warhol could've done a more exciting and invigorating job with the franchise. Three more points to close this out: 1) Don't see it in 3D; if it's not worth seeing in 2D, or even on DVD or TV, why shell the bucks for a film that wasn't even shot in the process to start with? 2) Asiff Mandvi appears as a supporting character. He either needs better material, or has to stick with the Daily Show as their (usually) Muslim correspondent. 3) The hubbub over the racial controversy with the casting is bunk; once you get past the fact that the water benders are white, everyone else is mixed with Asian and Middle Eastern/Indian ethnicities. That no one race or ethnicity can act here or is given anything to do is another matter.

Only if you're bored. Very very bored

tt0938283

Based on an animation series this film attempts to bring one of the successes of the Nickelodeon firm to the big screen. The series, basically about a young kid that finds his predestined path includes saving the world from destruction isn't too bad in itself - it combines the reality of martial arts with the fictional ability of bending the four elements to ones will and it has a decent story to tell.The film however, is quite bad. It skips through the story and leaves out way too many elements making it fractured. It also manages to fail on the visuals - I haven't seen the 3D version but in the 2D version the effects are mediocre at best, with one single exception, the finale is quite nice. And then there is the acting - far too many actors/actresses stare into the camera or into the distance and simply spoon up their text, making it as good as impossible to be pulled into the film and accept it as a temporary reality.All in all, a film that is best skipped, unless you are insanely bored, expecting the worst and willing to pay up to be proved even your worst expectations can be failed.4 out of 10 failed attempts at bending anything

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-764

ur0023796

title: Only if you're bored. Very very bored review: Based on an animation series this film attempts to bring one of the successes of the Nickelodeon firm to the big screen. The series, basically about a young kid that finds his predestined path includes saving the world from destruction isn't too bad in itself - it combines the reality of martial arts with the fictional ability of bending the four elements to ones will and it has a decent story to tell.The film however, is quite bad. It skips through the story and leaves out way too many elements making it fractured. It also manages to fail on the visuals - I haven't seen the 3D version but in the 2D version the effects are mediocre at best, with one single exception, the finale is quite nice. And then there is the acting - far too many actors/actresses stare into the camera or into the distance and simply spoon up their text, making it as good as impossible to be pulled into the film and accept it as a temporary reality.All in all, a film that is best skipped, unless you are insanely bored, expecting the worst and willing to pay up to be proved even your worst expectations can be failed.4 out of 10 failed attempts at bending anything

The Lost air-bender...

tt0938283

I was expecting a lot on this movie. I went to the cinema yesterday and I got excited when I saw the Shadows at the very beginning, showing the air-benders, the water-benders, the earth-benders and the fire-benders... But that was all. I felt like watching a very bad Bollywood movie (and finally it WAS a horrible Bollywood movie!!), as you can see when you look in You tube for : "Turkish Star wars" or "turkish superman".Bad plot, bad acting, bad fights. M. Nigth did what prince Ritzuko would like to do: He killed the avatar! with his bad direction, and allowing bad actors to star on this project. Aang looks like a scared child who has to look to the camera every minute, to get a clue or a thumb up and then know he's doing it well.And finally the dumb bad people, with that attitude of: "I could kill you, I should kill you right away!! But, you know what?: I'll let you live, so you will grow strong and kick my ass in a couple of years."Didn't like it at all.I'll give 2/10, just for the landscapes.It sucks!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-507

ur21613746

title: The Lost air-bender... review: I was expecting a lot on this movie. I went to the cinema yesterday and I got excited when I saw the Shadows at the very beginning, showing the air-benders, the water-benders, the earth-benders and the fire-benders... But that was all. I felt like watching a very bad Bollywood movie (and finally it WAS a horrible Bollywood movie!!), as you can see when you look in You tube for : "Turkish Star wars" or "turkish superman".Bad plot, bad acting, bad fights. M. Nigth did what prince Ritzuko would like to do: He killed the avatar! with his bad direction, and allowing bad actors to star on this project. Aang looks like a scared child who has to look to the camera every minute, to get a clue or a thumb up and then know he's doing it well.And finally the dumb bad people, with that attitude of: "I could kill you, I should kill you right away!! But, you know what?: I'll let you live, so you will grow strong and kick my ass in a couple of years."Didn't like it at all.I'll give 2/10, just for the landscapes.It sucks!

as a remake of the cartoon it sucks, as its own movie its awesome

tt0938283

after seeing the previews for this movie i was really excited to see it, i didn't expect that it would be very good as a redo of the cartoon show but thats mostly because a TV show can go on forever without needing to worry about cutting it down for length, while a movie is a lot tougher due to not being able to be four hours long.though it still could have had more to it, it could of been like 2 and a half hours long, it was good for the running time it had.i was also getting annoyed constantly by there mispronunciation of Aang.the effects were just jaw-dropping, the acting was actually really good for saying that there weren't any big name actors.i hear a lot of people put this movie down because it wasn't like the show enough, well duuuh! ITS NOT THE SAME SHOW! ITS A REDO! ITS DIFFERENT! GET OVER IT! i enjoyed this movie and i really hope that there is a sequel in the near future.and thats why i give THE LAST AIRBENDER 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-799

ur21320033

title: as a remake of the cartoon it sucks, as its own movie its awesome review: after seeing the previews for this movie i was really excited to see it, i didn't expect that it would be very good as a redo of the cartoon show but thats mostly because a TV show can go on forever without needing to worry about cutting it down for length, while a movie is a lot tougher due to not being able to be four hours long.though it still could have had more to it, it could of been like 2 and a half hours long, it was good for the running time it had.i was also getting annoyed constantly by there mispronunciation of Aang.the effects were just jaw-dropping, the acting was actually really good for saying that there weren't any big name actors.i hear a lot of people put this movie down because it wasn't like the show enough, well duuuh! ITS NOT THE SAME SHOW! ITS A REDO! ITS DIFFERENT! GET OVER IT! i enjoyed this movie and i really hope that there is a sequel in the near future.and thats why i give THE LAST AIRBENDER 8/10

A Nutshell Review: The Last Airbender

tt0938283

Having seen the movie, I'm actually quite disturbed by the numerous comments slamming it, from things like being racist (what gives?) to more spiteful ones that seem to enjoy jumping onto the bandwagon to discredit writer-director-producer M Night Shyamalan. I suppose he's suffering from the weight of the tremendous success his first feature film The Sixth Sense brought him, and everyone expects a continuous Midas touch, but having seen all his films, I am still of the opinion that he's a good storyteller, and have ventured beyond gimmicky reveal surprises to now tackle mass appeal entertainment, and showing that he's equally adapt to work on existing, established characters, versus creating his own thus far.Not having seen the series in its animated form, I'm probably more ready than the purists and fanboys to accept Shyamalan's version (surely you cannot expect too much to be crammed into 107 minutes?), which in this film is but Book 1: Water, dealing with the discovery of Aang (Noah Ringer) who happens to be the last of his kind, an airbender. For those not in the know like I was, the opening scroll provides a quick update on what benders are – folks who possess the ability to manipulate their respective elements of Air, Fire, Water and Earth, while only an Avatar, a chosen one if you will that is constantly reincarnated and rotated amongst the elements, will exist to ensure peace and harmony throughout the lands (almost tribe-like according to the elements as well). But the Avatar had disappeared for a century, so in the meantime the Fire Nation decides that it be best they begin to wage war to rule the world.Which is not surprising, and probably what Shyamalan had wanted to say in his movie continuing from his take on the environment from The Happening. The story's kept extremely simple to follow, so that the target demographics of the fans – the kids – will find it easy to understand the underlying, explicit message that it is important for everyone to take care of Nature, and highlights man's tendency to disrespect Nature and all things sacred. There's an expected loss of morality when governance, in this case the Avatar, is missing, and there will be parties abound to exploit this gap in the meantime for personal power and glory. Good folk have to stand up and be counted against oppression, and quite appropriately, it's the Fire nation to go rogue since fire is an important element to spark off the industrial revolution, from there utilizing technology and militarizing it, as well as the very obvious pollution that goes hand in hand.It's also no wonder that the Avatar, for all his powers, gets to learn a lesson about how he's there to keep the peace and not harbour intentions for revenge, since his own tribe is wiped out (hence his title as the last of his kind). Another important message and reminder to the kids in the audience that with great power means great responsibility (oops, wrong movie), and rightly so we don't see Aang unleashing his powers in bloodthirsty mode. Noah Ringer should be given credit for his charismatic take as the most powerful elemental-bending child in the world who still needs to undergo training and lessons to fulfill his destiny, and while he's not using his powers, he still has that very nifty staff to rely on, which expands into a hang glider. How cool is that?The other hand to hand combat weapon that I thought was top notch was the boomerang- sword, which unfortunately only had a scene in which it was used and caught in the scene in full glory. Industrial Light and Magic continues to show why it's still one of the go-to effects houses with the flawlessly designed and delivered bending effects, and frankly what was seen in the trailer actually provided yet another reason enough to catch this on the big screen, with massive water and ice sheets, force-push abilities and even a glimpse at what the Earth- benders can do when they bandy together against a common adversary.Supporting characters include the Southern Water tribe brother and sister team Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz) who were responsible in chancing upon Aang, and Prince Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame) and his uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) being the antagonist here with quite a rich backstory that puts them at odds with the Fire Nation Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) which I suspect the subsequent films may see them turn into allies.This was originally intended as the first part of a trilogy, and I hope that the rest get made because there's been too many false starts to the promise of fantasy franchises, from The Golden Compass to The Dark is Rising to name but two in reason years, where the box office returns were less than expected and hence the follow up films got canned. Sure the undeserving ones shouldn't have any more films made, but this film had a certain charm and quality to it, that I want to continue following Aang in his quest to become the Avatar. Highly recommended, if you have been waiting for a contemporary film franchise that's set to thrill, and surely I will be visiting the original source material if I have the time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-742

ur0317399

title: A Nutshell Review: The Last Airbender review: Having seen the movie, I'm actually quite disturbed by the numerous comments slamming it, from things like being racist (what gives?) to more spiteful ones that seem to enjoy jumping onto the bandwagon to discredit writer-director-producer M Night Shyamalan. I suppose he's suffering from the weight of the tremendous success his first feature film The Sixth Sense brought him, and everyone expects a continuous Midas touch, but having seen all his films, I am still of the opinion that he's a good storyteller, and have ventured beyond gimmicky reveal surprises to now tackle mass appeal entertainment, and showing that he's equally adapt to work on existing, established characters, versus creating his own thus far.Not having seen the series in its animated form, I'm probably more ready than the purists and fanboys to accept Shyamalan's version (surely you cannot expect too much to be crammed into 107 minutes?), which in this film is but Book 1: Water, dealing with the discovery of Aang (Noah Ringer) who happens to be the last of his kind, an airbender. For those not in the know like I was, the opening scroll provides a quick update on what benders are – folks who possess the ability to manipulate their respective elements of Air, Fire, Water and Earth, while only an Avatar, a chosen one if you will that is constantly reincarnated and rotated amongst the elements, will exist to ensure peace and harmony throughout the lands (almost tribe-like according to the elements as well). But the Avatar had disappeared for a century, so in the meantime the Fire Nation decides that it be best they begin to wage war to rule the world.Which is not surprising, and probably what Shyamalan had wanted to say in his movie continuing from his take on the environment from The Happening. The story's kept extremely simple to follow, so that the target demographics of the fans – the kids – will find it easy to understand the underlying, explicit message that it is important for everyone to take care of Nature, and highlights man's tendency to disrespect Nature and all things sacred. There's an expected loss of morality when governance, in this case the Avatar, is missing, and there will be parties abound to exploit this gap in the meantime for personal power and glory. Good folk have to stand up and be counted against oppression, and quite appropriately, it's the Fire nation to go rogue since fire is an important element to spark off the industrial revolution, from there utilizing technology and militarizing it, as well as the very obvious pollution that goes hand in hand.It's also no wonder that the Avatar, for all his powers, gets to learn a lesson about how he's there to keep the peace and not harbour intentions for revenge, since his own tribe is wiped out (hence his title as the last of his kind). Another important message and reminder to the kids in the audience that with great power means great responsibility (oops, wrong movie), and rightly so we don't see Aang unleashing his powers in bloodthirsty mode. Noah Ringer should be given credit for his charismatic take as the most powerful elemental-bending child in the world who still needs to undergo training and lessons to fulfill his destiny, and while he's not using his powers, he still has that very nifty staff to rely on, which expands into a hang glider. How cool is that?The other hand to hand combat weapon that I thought was top notch was the boomerang- sword, which unfortunately only had a scene in which it was used and caught in the scene in full glory. Industrial Light and Magic continues to show why it's still one of the go-to effects houses with the flawlessly designed and delivered bending effects, and frankly what was seen in the trailer actually provided yet another reason enough to catch this on the big screen, with massive water and ice sheets, force-push abilities and even a glimpse at what the Earth- benders can do when they bandy together against a common adversary.Supporting characters include the Southern Water tribe brother and sister team Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz) who were responsible in chancing upon Aang, and Prince Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame) and his uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub) being the antagonist here with quite a rich backstory that puts them at odds with the Fire Nation Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) which I suspect the subsequent films may see them turn into allies.This was originally intended as the first part of a trilogy, and I hope that the rest get made because there's been too many false starts to the promise of fantasy franchises, from The Golden Compass to The Dark is Rising to name but two in reason years, where the box office returns were less than expected and hence the follow up films got canned. Sure the undeserving ones shouldn't have any more films made, but this film had a certain charm and quality to it, that I want to continue following Aang in his quest to become the Avatar. Highly recommended, if you have been waiting for a contemporary film franchise that's set to thrill, and surely I will be visiting the original source material if I have the time.

Not at all bad

tt0938283

I have kind of a perverse desire to subject myself to awful movies. Last year, I just had to see Transformers 2 to see what everyone was talking about, and, wow, was it a disaster. The kind of disaster where you almost have to pick your jaw up off the floor after it finishes. I've been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan since The Sixth Sense, and, unlike most, I've kind of stuck by him, admitting the major flaws in his films and trying to point out that there was a lot of talent behind them. I skipped The Happening, because I was a little worried after Lady in the Water, which was most definitely a failure, even if it was interesting in concept. So I fully expected to agree with the vast majority who deemed The Last Airbender an epic catastrophe. I was a little afraid it would be unwatchable, an adjective I read many times when the film came out.But it just wasn't.I'm not going to pretend it's a great movie. Like all of his films, it's highly flawed. Most notably, the acting is mediocre at best. I was especially disappointed in Dev Patel, whom I very much liked in Slumdog Millionaire. But I don't think it ruins the movie (after all, the young cast members are mostly newbies and it is difficult to deliver that kind of quasi-mystical dialogue and sound convincing). And, yes, the racial politics are more than a little problematic, although my theory is that Shyamalan made the villains Indians because he wanted to insert himself into this film or the sequels (or perhaps he just wanted to cast Patel and it would be ridiculous to have each tribe be racially diverse, which wouldn't make too much sense in the story; besides, two of the major villains switch sides by the end of the film, so in no way is the film saying brown = bad)).So what did I like? Well, I know it's not huge praise, but I did enjoy that it was a Hollywood action movie that told a coherent story. I watched Prince of Persia afterward and RED this morning, and both of them were very sloppy in comparison. It's not especially complex, but it's not completely cliché-ridden (I'd take it over the name-stealing Avatar any day of the week). It does come off as a little clunky when it's delivering exposition, having been adapted from a very long animated series (which I want to see now - I'm sure it is a lot better, though that shouldn't mean the film is garbage). And the action sequences are well executed as well, also unlike Prince of Persia and RED. The first huge action sequence where Aang drove the Fire tribe out of an Earth Tribe village was particularly well done, with a long take and the camera swirling elegantly around the participants.What I liked most about it is that it looked quite beautiful, and the special effects were used to create a new world, not just to make us ooh and ah (again, looking at you, Avatar).I feel like this one got dismissed more because filmgoers have unfairly maligned Shyamalan and particularly wanted to pile up on this film. Also, as far as its critical reception goes, the retrograded 3D probably did make what is in reality a very stunning visual experience look like crud. It's really not fair that critics, at their free screenings, are forced to watch these movies in 3D, because it really is a bane on the artform. I think it all just came together like a perfect storm of hatred, and the result is that a perfectly decent fantasy film becomes the most reviled movie of the past decade.I'd certainly show up for a sequel, but I doubt they'll make it now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-1114

ur0391152

title: Not at all bad review: I have kind of a perverse desire to subject myself to awful movies. Last year, I just had to see Transformers 2 to see what everyone was talking about, and, wow, was it a disaster. The kind of disaster where you almost have to pick your jaw up off the floor after it finishes. I've been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan since The Sixth Sense, and, unlike most, I've kind of stuck by him, admitting the major flaws in his films and trying to point out that there was a lot of talent behind them. I skipped The Happening, because I was a little worried after Lady in the Water, which was most definitely a failure, even if it was interesting in concept. So I fully expected to agree with the vast majority who deemed The Last Airbender an epic catastrophe. I was a little afraid it would be unwatchable, an adjective I read many times when the film came out.But it just wasn't.I'm not going to pretend it's a great movie. Like all of his films, it's highly flawed. Most notably, the acting is mediocre at best. I was especially disappointed in Dev Patel, whom I very much liked in Slumdog Millionaire. But I don't think it ruins the movie (after all, the young cast members are mostly newbies and it is difficult to deliver that kind of quasi-mystical dialogue and sound convincing). And, yes, the racial politics are more than a little problematic, although my theory is that Shyamalan made the villains Indians because he wanted to insert himself into this film or the sequels (or perhaps he just wanted to cast Patel and it would be ridiculous to have each tribe be racially diverse, which wouldn't make too much sense in the story; besides, two of the major villains switch sides by the end of the film, so in no way is the film saying brown = bad)).So what did I like? Well, I know it's not huge praise, but I did enjoy that it was a Hollywood action movie that told a coherent story. I watched Prince of Persia afterward and RED this morning, and both of them were very sloppy in comparison. It's not especially complex, but it's not completely cliché-ridden (I'd take it over the name-stealing Avatar any day of the week). It does come off as a little clunky when it's delivering exposition, having been adapted from a very long animated series (which I want to see now - I'm sure it is a lot better, though that shouldn't mean the film is garbage). And the action sequences are well executed as well, also unlike Prince of Persia and RED. The first huge action sequence where Aang drove the Fire tribe out of an Earth Tribe village was particularly well done, with a long take and the camera swirling elegantly around the participants.What I liked most about it is that it looked quite beautiful, and the special effects were used to create a new world, not just to make us ooh and ah (again, looking at you, Avatar).I feel like this one got dismissed more because filmgoers have unfairly maligned Shyamalan and particularly wanted to pile up on this film. Also, as far as its critical reception goes, the retrograded 3D probably did make what is in reality a very stunning visual experience look like crud. It's really not fair that critics, at their free screenings, are forced to watch these movies in 3D, because it really is a bane on the artform. I think it all just came together like a perfect storm of hatred, and the result is that a perfectly decent fantasy film becomes the most reviled movie of the past decade.I'd certainly show up for a sequel, but I doubt they'll make it now.

Magickal

tt0938283

This movie strikes a chord within me. It speaks to some ancient racial or tribal memory; coaxes it out of the subconscious until it sparks the imagination and ignites the creative juices. This film was rife with magick and possibilities about our earth, our past, and our future as humans. MNS has a reputation for creativity. I'm really happy to see he still has the propensity for high magick about him.Many will misunderstand this film, and others will claim to understand it, just not like it. But for the same reasons that Star Wars, Avatar, and Psycho still inspire us, intrigue us, trigger our creativity, and fuel our imagination, so this does, as well.All in all? If you have even the smallest spark of magick in your veins, you will find enjoyment herein. Let the pretentious numbers prattle on about how bad this is, how lifeless, and how it lacks creativity, but I found it purely Magickal.It rates a 9.2/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/reviews-460

ur2626332

title: Magickal review: This movie strikes a chord within me. It speaks to some ancient racial or tribal memory; coaxes it out of the subconscious until it sparks the imagination and ignites the creative juices. This film was rife with magick and possibilities about our earth, our past, and our future as humans. MNS has a reputation for creativity. I'm really happy to see he still has the propensity for high magick about him.Many will misunderstand this film, and others will claim to understand it, just not like it. But for the same reasons that Star Wars, Avatar, and Psycho still inspire us, intrigue us, trigger our creativity, and fuel our imagination, so this does, as well.All in all? If you have even the smallest spark of magick in your veins, you will find enjoyment herein. Let the pretentious numbers prattle on about how bad this is, how lifeless, and how it lacks creativity, but I found it purely Magickal.It rates a 9.2/10 from...the Fiend :.

Wow

tt0248654

I never say "Wow", but I think it is appropriate in this case. I am just blown away by Six Feet Under. It is a beautiful, poignant and philosophical TV show that in my opinion will never be surpassed. It portrays death and everything connected with death so well. It doesn't try to be something its not, its makes the viewer feel as if they are apart of the lives of these characters. Six Feet Under really makes you feel the pain and sadness of the people involved in each episode for their loss as if you were experiencing it first hand. It asks and answers many philosophical questions that the viewer may have and it is because of this that makes Six Feet Under so great and it is a shame that it had to end so early. There will never be another "Six Feet Under" or anything close to it that portrays Life and Death so well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-261

ur26897720

title: Wow review: I never say "Wow", but I think it is appropriate in this case. I am just blown away by Six Feet Under. It is a beautiful, poignant and philosophical TV show that in my opinion will never be surpassed. It portrays death and everything connected with death so well. It doesn't try to be something its not, its makes the viewer feel as if they are apart of the lives of these characters. Six Feet Under really makes you feel the pain and sadness of the people involved in each episode for their loss as if you were experiencing it first hand. It asks and answers many philosophical questions that the viewer may have and it is because of this that makes Six Feet Under so great and it is a shame that it had to end so early. There will never be another "Six Feet Under" or anything close to it that portrays Life and Death so well.

Best show for girls ever made.

tt0248654

Much like Alan Ball's "American Beauty," this artsy drama floats on a thin line between macabre and gorgeous, often stumbling upon greatness in it's journey.I just finished watching the entire series from beginning to end. I do not recommend doing this. The show was clearly made to be seen week after week. Watching it like I did will only depress you.Every show is centered around a death. What a cool concept. The trouble is if you have any heart at all, you will mourn the loss of several of the show's main characters along the way with little warning. I do believe the Fisher family is surrounded by more death than the average American folks, but hey, it's a TV show.If anyone refers to this show as 'realistic,' you should probably stop reading their review immediately. It's far from it. It is total Hollywood. Everyone has limitless money and questionable employment, yet lives in Ethan Allen-furnished homes in L.A. or in beautiful apartments with skyline views. They drink expensive wine and eat at five star restaurants on a whim. Adults 'intern' for fun while commuting in brand new cars. Hippies with no jobs live in Topanga Valley. EVERYONE smokes marijuana. It never really is clear where all the money comes from. One character in particular owns a gorgeous Seattle home on a hill overlooking the downtown area and guess what she does for a living? Works at a food co-op. Man, I chose the wrong line of work.All in all this show has a ton to offer but don't expect to see "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" here. I'd get it for your girlfriend or wife as something that she will love and you will probably be able to sit through and might even enjoy. I will admit, I did shed a tear in one of the episodes in season five.And the things you have heard about the series finale are true: it's the best I've EVER seen.8 out of 10, kids.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-192

ur17816817

title: Best show for girls ever made. review: Much like Alan Ball's "American Beauty," this artsy drama floats on a thin line between macabre and gorgeous, often stumbling upon greatness in it's journey.I just finished watching the entire series from beginning to end. I do not recommend doing this. The show was clearly made to be seen week after week. Watching it like I did will only depress you.Every show is centered around a death. What a cool concept. The trouble is if you have any heart at all, you will mourn the loss of several of the show's main characters along the way with little warning. I do believe the Fisher family is surrounded by more death than the average American folks, but hey, it's a TV show.If anyone refers to this show as 'realistic,' you should probably stop reading their review immediately. It's far from it. It is total Hollywood. Everyone has limitless money and questionable employment, yet lives in Ethan Allen-furnished homes in L.A. or in beautiful apartments with skyline views. They drink expensive wine and eat at five star restaurants on a whim. Adults 'intern' for fun while commuting in brand new cars. Hippies with no jobs live in Topanga Valley. EVERYONE smokes marijuana. It never really is clear where all the money comes from. One character in particular owns a gorgeous Seattle home on a hill overlooking the downtown area and guess what she does for a living? Works at a food co-op. Man, I chose the wrong line of work.All in all this show has a ton to offer but don't expect to see "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" here. I'd get it for your girlfriend or wife as something that she will love and you will probably be able to sit through and might even enjoy. I will admit, I did shed a tear in one of the episodes in season five.And the things you have heard about the series finale are true: it's the best I've EVER seen.8 out of 10, kids.

A truly stand-out show, every episode is wonderful

tt0248654

Of all television shows I rank this, House MD, and maybe 2 more out there as the best ever. Six Feet Under is one heck of a show that gets you involved in many levels, not many programs can do that.The story centers around the Fisher Family and the way they each deal with death, from the beginning to the very end. I won't spoil anything for you, I'll just say that each person throughout the show grows as a human being and becomes better and better at what they set out to do. This show also has what I consider to be an honest and sincere way of looking at death, which ultimately comes for us all.If you get to watch it in its entirety be prepared, this has the best finale for a series I've ever seen before.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-188

ur8815646

title: A truly stand-out show, every episode is wonderful review: Of all television shows I rank this, House MD, and maybe 2 more out there as the best ever. Six Feet Under is one heck of a show that gets you involved in many levels, not many programs can do that.The story centers around the Fisher Family and the way they each deal with death, from the beginning to the very end. I won't spoil anything for you, I'll just say that each person throughout the show grows as a human being and becomes better and better at what they set out to do. This show also has what I consider to be an honest and sincere way of looking at death, which ultimately comes for us all.If you get to watch it in its entirety be prepared, this has the best finale for a series I've ever seen before.

Sooner or later, 'It's' gonna getcha...(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

tt0248654

And by that I mean both The Grim Reaper, or this amazing series created and co-produced by Alan Ball, the writer of "American Beauty". (Here's hoping that the series gets you first.) But imagine, if you will, what the pitch to the 'Big Four' Networks could have sounded like:"It's a family-oriented, complex yet very funny, life-affirming series.""Oh, sounds interesting. What's it about?""Oh, death and dying."Those who are accustomed to living out their everyday existences in their comfortable hidey-holes will do exactly what those network execs did: tune out IMMEDIATELY. The only subject matter more taboo than what people do in their bedrooms is where we're all going to eventually end up someday, whether we like it or not, or want to admit it or not. They say death and taxes are both inevitable; that's been proved wrong. Politicians and captains of industry manage to dodge taxes all the time; we see the evidence in the headlines. But nobody, and I mean NO-body gets the best of The Reaper.But "Six Feet Under" despite its setting and subject matter, is about death the way "American Beauty" was about the underbelly of sunny Suburbia. Like the poster said, dummy: LOOK CLOSER. 6FU is about the way we take life, death and each other for granted, and with the trials and tribulations of the dysfunctional Fisher family, we are given gentle nudges, and some not-so-gentle reminders about Why We're Here: to live for today, and do it as if there will be no tomorrow. Because eventually, friends and neighbors, there won't be. And you won't realize when, where or how, until it's too late.Nathaniel Fisher, Sr. (Richard Jenkins) certainly took it all for granted. And being the head of the Fisher household, as well as director of Fisher and Sons Funeral Home, he should have known better. But, like all of us, he was just going about his business, doing the kind of thing he always did everyday, until his smoking habit finally killed him...literally. (Okay, so the bus that totaled the hearse he was driving had something to do with it, too.)The timing couldn't have been worse. Or better, considering the family was coming together for the holidays, anyway, with everyone living in their own little worlds just like Nate, Sr.: Nate Jr. (Peter Krause) scores with a good-looking fellow traveler on his flight (Rachel Griffiths), whose name he learns is Brenda, only after they've had an energetic, semi-clad, stand-up broom closet boff at the airport. Ruth (a magnificent performance from Frances Conroy) is tending to the holiday dinner, attempting to maintain family order and harmony while trying not to have a nervous breakdown. Younger son David (Michael C. Hall) is also barely holding it together maintaining his stiff and starched facade, while simmering underneath is his deepest passion, not for the family business of handling cold stiffs, but for the warm and muscular form of the black LAPD uniformed officer he's been secretly dating, ("All My Children" alum Mathew St. Patrick.)And let's not forget youngest sibling, wild-child Claire (Lauren Ambrose) who is attending a drug-fueled shindig with Gabe (Eric Balfour), her dope-and-damsel crazy, college-slacker boyfriend. He hooks her up with some crystal meth about the same time she gets the news that dear old dad is now not only 'President of the Dead Club for Men', but a client as well.What occurs as the family assembles to grieve, heal and pick up the shattered pieces of their collective lives, is brilliantly rendered by everyone involved. Leave it to HBO to give free reign to Ball, to show us how Death can reveal to us the Meaning of Life in all of its precious wonder, intricacy, and ultimately, its brevity.Subsequent episodes have shown that the quirky, spooky yet profound qualities of this show have not dissipated one iota, in the tradition of HBO's best series offerings. This will not come as much comfort to those of us who feel that we get enough death in the papers, death on the six and eleven o'clock news, even death at the multiplexes, with the rising body counts in every summer's crop of blockbusters. I can't say they're wrong, but I do feel sorry for them, because they will never see the brightest messages about life, love, and the way we need to strengthen and reaffirm our connections to one another, shining out from the blackest depths of 6FU's darkest moments of gallows-humor.At least that is what I've come away with from the show: if you ever hope to make peace with the inevitability of your passing, make sure your life isn't passing you by.Just like OZ, THE SOPRANOS and SEX AND THE CITY before it, 6FU kept its promise to polarize viewers. Those who hated it got through about one episode, only never to watch it again, while those who loved it did whatever they had to, making sure they never missed an episode. I used to save all my Sundays to spend time with the Fishers, and I never regretted it. So now, I hope that the experience I came away with will help me get by, until I REALLY have to spend time with the Fishers...or someone like them...If you haven't seen any of this marvelous show yet, don't wait for a tomorrow you might not have...see it NOW!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-13

ur0541468

title: Sooner or later, 'It's' gonna getcha...(POSSIBLE SPOILERS) review: And by that I mean both The Grim Reaper, or this amazing series created and co-produced by Alan Ball, the writer of "American Beauty". (Here's hoping that the series gets you first.) But imagine, if you will, what the pitch to the 'Big Four' Networks could have sounded like:"It's a family-oriented, complex yet very funny, life-affirming series.""Oh, sounds interesting. What's it about?""Oh, death and dying."Those who are accustomed to living out their everyday existences in their comfortable hidey-holes will do exactly what those network execs did: tune out IMMEDIATELY. The only subject matter more taboo than what people do in their bedrooms is where we're all going to eventually end up someday, whether we like it or not, or want to admit it or not. They say death and taxes are both inevitable; that's been proved wrong. Politicians and captains of industry manage to dodge taxes all the time; we see the evidence in the headlines. But nobody, and I mean NO-body gets the best of The Reaper.But "Six Feet Under" despite its setting and subject matter, is about death the way "American Beauty" was about the underbelly of sunny Suburbia. Like the poster said, dummy: LOOK CLOSER. 6FU is about the way we take life, death and each other for granted, and with the trials and tribulations of the dysfunctional Fisher family, we are given gentle nudges, and some not-so-gentle reminders about Why We're Here: to live for today, and do it as if there will be no tomorrow. Because eventually, friends and neighbors, there won't be. And you won't realize when, where or how, until it's too late.Nathaniel Fisher, Sr. (Richard Jenkins) certainly took it all for granted. And being the head of the Fisher household, as well as director of Fisher and Sons Funeral Home, he should have known better. But, like all of us, he was just going about his business, doing the kind of thing he always did everyday, until his smoking habit finally killed him...literally. (Okay, so the bus that totaled the hearse he was driving had something to do with it, too.)The timing couldn't have been worse. Or better, considering the family was coming together for the holidays, anyway, with everyone living in their own little worlds just like Nate, Sr.: Nate Jr. (Peter Krause) scores with a good-looking fellow traveler on his flight (Rachel Griffiths), whose name he learns is Brenda, only after they've had an energetic, semi-clad, stand-up broom closet boff at the airport. Ruth (a magnificent performance from Frances Conroy) is tending to the holiday dinner, attempting to maintain family order and harmony while trying not to have a nervous breakdown. Younger son David (Michael C. Hall) is also barely holding it together maintaining his stiff and starched facade, while simmering underneath is his deepest passion, not for the family business of handling cold stiffs, but for the warm and muscular form of the black LAPD uniformed officer he's been secretly dating, ("All My Children" alum Mathew St. Patrick.)And let's not forget youngest sibling, wild-child Claire (Lauren Ambrose) who is attending a drug-fueled shindig with Gabe (Eric Balfour), her dope-and-damsel crazy, college-slacker boyfriend. He hooks her up with some crystal meth about the same time she gets the news that dear old dad is now not only 'President of the Dead Club for Men', but a client as well.What occurs as the family assembles to grieve, heal and pick up the shattered pieces of their collective lives, is brilliantly rendered by everyone involved. Leave it to HBO to give free reign to Ball, to show us how Death can reveal to us the Meaning of Life in all of its precious wonder, intricacy, and ultimately, its brevity.Subsequent episodes have shown that the quirky, spooky yet profound qualities of this show have not dissipated one iota, in the tradition of HBO's best series offerings. This will not come as much comfort to those of us who feel that we get enough death in the papers, death on the six and eleven o'clock news, even death at the multiplexes, with the rising body counts in every summer's crop of blockbusters. I can't say they're wrong, but I do feel sorry for them, because they will never see the brightest messages about life, love, and the way we need to strengthen and reaffirm our connections to one another, shining out from the blackest depths of 6FU's darkest moments of gallows-humor.At least that is what I've come away with from the show: if you ever hope to make peace with the inevitability of your passing, make sure your life isn't passing you by.Just like OZ, THE SOPRANOS and SEX AND THE CITY before it, 6FU kept its promise to polarize viewers. Those who hated it got through about one episode, only never to watch it again, while those who loved it did whatever they had to, making sure they never missed an episode. I used to save all my Sundays to spend time with the Fishers, and I never regretted it. So now, I hope that the experience I came away with will help me get by, until I REALLY have to spend time with the Fishers...or someone like them...If you haven't seen any of this marvelous show yet, don't wait for a tomorrow you might not have...see it NOW!

A masterful look at life through death

tt0248654

For five years Six Feet Under entranced, entertained and moved audiences all over the world with its black humor, sharp characterization and flawless cast. It is now justly remembered as one of the best programs in television history, and can undoubtedly be considered HBO's masterpiece, hand in hand with The Sopranos - that's how groundbreaking its five seasons and 63 episodes were and still are.The show was created by Alan Ball, the Oscar-winning writer of American Beauty, and it is easy to see how SFU is Beauty's small-screen companion piece: they're both poignant, funny, original studies of traditional American values and families gone wrong, two pitch-perfect satires that hit the target with unprecedented accuracy, unafraid to use foul language, sex, drugs and - a truly brilliant choice, this - dream sequences to achieve their goal.What the Burnhams did on the big screen, the Fishers do on the small: they appear to be normal, but are really too dysfunctional to even accept themselves. Of course, "normality" is a bit of an odd concept when your house is a funeral parlor and you spend day after day comforting strangers while wearing a mask of thinly veiled hypocrisy.From that situation Ball got the premise of the show: what if one day you had to bury a family member? When Nathan Samuel Fisher Sr. (Richard Jenkins), owner of Fisher & Sons, is run over by a bus in the first scene of the series, the rest of the family slowly falls apart: the adulterous widow Ruth (Frances Conroy) is overcome by guilt; the eldest son, Nate Jr. (Peter Krause) is forced to reluctantly join the business; his brother David (Michael C. Hall) is completely dedicated to the family trade, but also gay and a bit awkward when he has to express his feelings; and the youngest sibling (Claire) has a thing for experimenting with drugs and dating the wrong boys. Helping them, or possibly not, in their attempts to cope with the new situation, are Federico Diaz (Freddy Rodriguez), who embalms the corpses over at Fisher & Sons, Keith Charles (Mathew St. Patrick), an African-American police officer who is dating David, and Brenda Chenowith (Rachel Griffiths), Nate's girlfriend, who has to deal with a twisted brother of her own, the mentally disturbed Billy (Jeremy Sisto).Six Feet Under was an essential tool in dealing with one of the biggest taboos in television: death. Every Single episode begins with someone biting the dust, often in a darkly comic way (the porn-star who gets electrocuted by her cat in the fifth episode comes to mind). Subsequently, the Fishers have to arrange the burial, and in most cases the departed come back in ghostly form to offer advice (the most notable case is that of Nathaniel Fisher himself, who pops up regularly in all five seasons). Many people were shocked by the almost grotesque tone of the series (the pilot episode even had fake commercials for funeral products), but what they failed to understand is that Six Feet Under deals with death as a means to celebrate life. To fully embrace existence implies that at some point one must also discuss the end of it all, and like Alfred Hitchcock used to say in his own TV series, what better way to face death than with a smile on your face? In its own, twisted way, this show confirmed that once again laughter is the best medicine.That doesn't mean the series should be mistaken for a full-on comedy, though: like stablemate The Sopranos, Six Feet Under remains, at its core, a pure American tragedy, the black humor being there just as a partial relief from the bleaker events occurring throughout the show's five-year run. The drama is perfectly served not just by the outstanding writing, but also, fundamentally, by the actors: Krause and Hall received most of the early praise, the former for acting as the audience's guide into the Fishers' twisted world, the latter for playing a believable, three-dimensional gay person, as opposed to the deliberately excessive and flamboyant characters depicted in another HBO hit, Sex and the City. The truth is, everyone gives their best, both the show's regulars (Rodriguez and Griffiths in particular) and the magisterial guest stars, including Patricia Clarkson, Lili Taylor, James Cromwell and Kathy Bates (who also directed a few episodes, like Steve Buscemi in The Sopranos).With its unique perspective on life and death, which was controversially amusing and surprisingly serious at the same time, Six Feet Under stands out as one of the edgiest, most brilliant and thought-provoking products American TV has ever spawned, a series whose reflection on the American way of life has few rivals in any artistic category.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-183

ur5156288

title: A masterful look at life through death review: For five years Six Feet Under entranced, entertained and moved audiences all over the world with its black humor, sharp characterization and flawless cast. It is now justly remembered as one of the best programs in television history, and can undoubtedly be considered HBO's masterpiece, hand in hand with The Sopranos - that's how groundbreaking its five seasons and 63 episodes were and still are.The show was created by Alan Ball, the Oscar-winning writer of American Beauty, and it is easy to see how SFU is Beauty's small-screen companion piece: they're both poignant, funny, original studies of traditional American values and families gone wrong, two pitch-perfect satires that hit the target with unprecedented accuracy, unafraid to use foul language, sex, drugs and - a truly brilliant choice, this - dream sequences to achieve their goal.What the Burnhams did on the big screen, the Fishers do on the small: they appear to be normal, but are really too dysfunctional to even accept themselves. Of course, "normality" is a bit of an odd concept when your house is a funeral parlor and you spend day after day comforting strangers while wearing a mask of thinly veiled hypocrisy.From that situation Ball got the premise of the show: what if one day you had to bury a family member? When Nathan Samuel Fisher Sr. (Richard Jenkins), owner of Fisher & Sons, is run over by a bus in the first scene of the series, the rest of the family slowly falls apart: the adulterous widow Ruth (Frances Conroy) is overcome by guilt; the eldest son, Nate Jr. (Peter Krause) is forced to reluctantly join the business; his brother David (Michael C. Hall) is completely dedicated to the family trade, but also gay and a bit awkward when he has to express his feelings; and the youngest sibling (Claire) has a thing for experimenting with drugs and dating the wrong boys. Helping them, or possibly not, in their attempts to cope with the new situation, are Federico Diaz (Freddy Rodriguez), who embalms the corpses over at Fisher & Sons, Keith Charles (Mathew St. Patrick), an African-American police officer who is dating David, and Brenda Chenowith (Rachel Griffiths), Nate's girlfriend, who has to deal with a twisted brother of her own, the mentally disturbed Billy (Jeremy Sisto).Six Feet Under was an essential tool in dealing with one of the biggest taboos in television: death. Every Single episode begins with someone biting the dust, often in a darkly comic way (the porn-star who gets electrocuted by her cat in the fifth episode comes to mind). Subsequently, the Fishers have to arrange the burial, and in most cases the departed come back in ghostly form to offer advice (the most notable case is that of Nathaniel Fisher himself, who pops up regularly in all five seasons). Many people were shocked by the almost grotesque tone of the series (the pilot episode even had fake commercials for funeral products), but what they failed to understand is that Six Feet Under deals with death as a means to celebrate life. To fully embrace existence implies that at some point one must also discuss the end of it all, and like Alfred Hitchcock used to say in his own TV series, what better way to face death than with a smile on your face? In its own, twisted way, this show confirmed that once again laughter is the best medicine.That doesn't mean the series should be mistaken for a full-on comedy, though: like stablemate The Sopranos, Six Feet Under remains, at its core, a pure American tragedy, the black humor being there just as a partial relief from the bleaker events occurring throughout the show's five-year run. The drama is perfectly served not just by the outstanding writing, but also, fundamentally, by the actors: Krause and Hall received most of the early praise, the former for acting as the audience's guide into the Fishers' twisted world, the latter for playing a believable, three-dimensional gay person, as opposed to the deliberately excessive and flamboyant characters depicted in another HBO hit, Sex and the City. The truth is, everyone gives their best, both the show's regulars (Rodriguez and Griffiths in particular) and the magisterial guest stars, including Patricia Clarkson, Lili Taylor, James Cromwell and Kathy Bates (who also directed a few episodes, like Steve Buscemi in The Sopranos).With its unique perspective on life and death, which was controversially amusing and surprisingly serious at the same time, Six Feet Under stands out as one of the edgiest, most brilliant and thought-provoking products American TV has ever spawned, a series whose reflection on the American way of life has few rivals in any artistic category.

The best show ever!

tt0248654

Six Feet Under, HBO's most accomplished and consistently excellent show, ended a little more than two years ago. So why review the show, and learn about it now? Six Feet Under is much more than it seems. A rich show with several layers, it's all about people living their lives, making discoveries about themselves, and of course some drama, romance, and suspense thrown in for good measure. Not only is the show the best and most amazing show in television history, but it is also an incredible portrayal of human life and what it means to live. We live, we die, and the world keeps moving on. Six Feet Under is all about life and loss and all of the emotions, horrors, and realization that come with it. It is at times depressingly realistic, but it can also be beautifully true. There are so many beautiful things in this world, and if you just look or listen, you can find them. You can take joy in your life and make it worth living.The dialogue, the writing, and the acting make this show a real treasure, and there isn't a single flimsy patch in this perfectly built house. Every time a character has an argument or gives a big speech, everything is just perfectly laced with dark humor and an often cynical approach to life that everyone can openly relate to. We've all lost people that we care about, and we all have to move on. All of these situations and interactions seem so entirely human and possible that they really pull you in with their hard-hitting content. Which is also to say that this show doesn't hold anything back. It's raw. It's mean. It's real. There are practically no boundaries because that's exactly what life is; it's a big roller coaster ride of breaking rules, learning lessons, making mistakes, meeting new people, and new experiences. This show never teaches and preaches: it tells it like it is, and doesn't bother with subtlety.After the oldest member of the family, Nathaniel Fisher (Richard Jenkins), is killed suddenly in a car crash, all of the Fisher family is brought together under the strangest of circumstances. The family is very off-beat and bizarre, and each member lives (or lived) in the family house, a very large funeral home. There is: Ruth Fisher (Frances Conroy), caring, troubled mother who is still not sure what pleases her; Nate Fisher (Peter Krause), oldest son who was coming home for the holidays when tragedy struck; David Fisher (Michael C. Hall), closeted homosexual who takes over the family business in the wake of Nathaniel's tragedy; and Claire Fisher (Lauren Ambrose), quirky young high school student who becomes obsessed with photography. And of course, there is Federico Diaz (Freddy Rodriguez), facial restoration expert who works at the funeral home, Brenda Chenowith (Rachel Griffiths), a woman Nate meets in the first episode and becomes extremely attached to, and Keith Charles (Matthew St. Patrick), David's boyfriend and a mysterious figure to the rest of the family. The show is all about the budding family business, losing a loved one, Nate's reluctance to embrace his family, and David's reluctance of coming out, along with much more.The show is host to a series of spectacular performances from the likes of Michael C. Hall and Lauren Ambrose to the underrated Rainn Wilson and Peter Krause. Most of these episodes are filled to the brim with such heady emotional drama that if the wrong actors were participating, the show would be a total wreck. There are so many fantastical opportunities and guest appearances, and there were some truly amazing episodes every week. The people with smaller roles are even spectacular, and the ones that come in later in the series are simply to die for. Some of my favorite smaller-role characters: Bettina, played by Kathy Bates; Maggie, played Tina Holmes, Gabe, played by Eric Balfour; and Jimmy played by Peter Facinelli. It is also of note that nearly every cast member in any given episode contributes to the altogether perfect and realistic quality of this series.Six Feet Under might have ended in 2005, but its relevance to society and culture will probably not fade for quite some time. It remains the best show of all time simply because it was consistently superb, with not a single bad episode. The writing was the very best and there were constant references to previous seasons. With the finale, everything came full circle and we are left to reflect on our lives and the entire series. Each scene is so rich with detail and the final ten minutes are just stunning. After seeing this finale, this show truly moved from being extremely excellent to being the best show ever. After watching through the series twice now, it has become all the better because of the season finale. The characters are just so perfect and they are given what can only be described as extremely satisfying conclusions. There has arguably never been a more thought-provoking, realistic, moving, spectacular scene in the history of television. If you're a lover of Six Feet Under, here are some amazingly good recommendations: check out Dexter, Queer as Folk, Nip/Tuck, and Heroes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-176

ur7752337

title: The best show ever! review: Six Feet Under, HBO's most accomplished and consistently excellent show, ended a little more than two years ago. So why review the show, and learn about it now? Six Feet Under is much more than it seems. A rich show with several layers, it's all about people living their lives, making discoveries about themselves, and of course some drama, romance, and suspense thrown in for good measure. Not only is the show the best and most amazing show in television history, but it is also an incredible portrayal of human life and what it means to live. We live, we die, and the world keeps moving on. Six Feet Under is all about life and loss and all of the emotions, horrors, and realization that come with it. It is at times depressingly realistic, but it can also be beautifully true. There are so many beautiful things in this world, and if you just look or listen, you can find them. You can take joy in your life and make it worth living.The dialogue, the writing, and the acting make this show a real treasure, and there isn't a single flimsy patch in this perfectly built house. Every time a character has an argument or gives a big speech, everything is just perfectly laced with dark humor and an often cynical approach to life that everyone can openly relate to. We've all lost people that we care about, and we all have to move on. All of these situations and interactions seem so entirely human and possible that they really pull you in with their hard-hitting content. Which is also to say that this show doesn't hold anything back. It's raw. It's mean. It's real. There are practically no boundaries because that's exactly what life is; it's a big roller coaster ride of breaking rules, learning lessons, making mistakes, meeting new people, and new experiences. This show never teaches and preaches: it tells it like it is, and doesn't bother with subtlety.After the oldest member of the family, Nathaniel Fisher (Richard Jenkins), is killed suddenly in a car crash, all of the Fisher family is brought together under the strangest of circumstances. The family is very off-beat and bizarre, and each member lives (or lived) in the family house, a very large funeral home. There is: Ruth Fisher (Frances Conroy), caring, troubled mother who is still not sure what pleases her; Nate Fisher (Peter Krause), oldest son who was coming home for the holidays when tragedy struck; David Fisher (Michael C. Hall), closeted homosexual who takes over the family business in the wake of Nathaniel's tragedy; and Claire Fisher (Lauren Ambrose), quirky young high school student who becomes obsessed with photography. And of course, there is Federico Diaz (Freddy Rodriguez), facial restoration expert who works at the funeral home, Brenda Chenowith (Rachel Griffiths), a woman Nate meets in the first episode and becomes extremely attached to, and Keith Charles (Matthew St. Patrick), David's boyfriend and a mysterious figure to the rest of the family. The show is all about the budding family business, losing a loved one, Nate's reluctance to embrace his family, and David's reluctance of coming out, along with much more.The show is host to a series of spectacular performances from the likes of Michael C. Hall and Lauren Ambrose to the underrated Rainn Wilson and Peter Krause. Most of these episodes are filled to the brim with such heady emotional drama that if the wrong actors were participating, the show would be a total wreck. There are so many fantastical opportunities and guest appearances, and there were some truly amazing episodes every week. The people with smaller roles are even spectacular, and the ones that come in later in the series are simply to die for. Some of my favorite smaller-role characters: Bettina, played by Kathy Bates; Maggie, played Tina Holmes, Gabe, played by Eric Balfour; and Jimmy played by Peter Facinelli. It is also of note that nearly every cast member in any given episode contributes to the altogether perfect and realistic quality of this series.Six Feet Under might have ended in 2005, but its relevance to society and culture will probably not fade for quite some time. It remains the best show of all time simply because it was consistently superb, with not a single bad episode. The writing was the very best and there were constant references to previous seasons. With the finale, everything came full circle and we are left to reflect on our lives and the entire series. Each scene is so rich with detail and the final ten minutes are just stunning. After seeing this finale, this show truly moved from being extremely excellent to being the best show ever. After watching through the series twice now, it has become all the better because of the season finale. The characters are just so perfect and they are given what can only be described as extremely satisfying conclusions. There has arguably never been a more thought-provoking, realistic, moving, spectacular scene in the history of television. If you're a lover of Six Feet Under, here are some amazingly good recommendations: check out Dexter, Queer as Folk, Nip/Tuck, and Heroes.

Nothing Brings A Family Together Like Death

tt0248654

The wonderful thing about cable TV is that it can get away with a lot more than primetime television. Most people know this from watching such things as THE SOPRANOS. Sex, drugs, gore. Nothing is "too much" for them.And SIX FEET UNDER follows this example but by focusing on the Fisher family, a truly messed up group of undertakers who own/operate a funeral home in southern California.Each episode opens with the death of someone, and this sets up the premise for that week's show.The very first episode starts with the death of the Fisher patriarch, Nathanial Fisher (Richard Jenkins, RUMOR HAS IT). He's driving home a new hearse when it is struck by a bus, killing him instantly. He leaves behind his wife Ruth (Frances Conroy, THE AVIATOR), his eldest son David (Michael C. Hall, PAYCHECK), his younger son Nate (Peter Krause, THE TRUMAN SHOW), and high school daughter Claire (Lauren Ambrose, PARTY OF FIVE TV series). This was a very effective way to get "into" the Fisher family from a viewer's standpoint. Nothing pulls a family together like the death of one of its closest members. Although they were coming together anyway for Christmas, the Fisher's are now forced to deal with each other on a very tight level. David has been working at the funeral home all his life and feels that his life may have been wasted. He also has to deal with his homosexuality and his inability to "come out of the closet" to his family and friends. His love for officer Keith Charles (Mathew St. Patrick, REUNION TV series) is felt throughout the series, and is on and off thanks to David's psychological hurdles. Matriarch Ruth comes out to the family on her own as she tells them about an affair she'd been having for some time with a hairdresser (male); this comes out during the viewing of her husband as he awaits internment. Younger son Nate gets news of his father's death while having sex with a stranger (Rachel Griffiths, VERY ANNIE MARY) in an airport maintenance closet. We soon learn that her name is Brenda and with her comes an entirely new set of baggage for Nate in the form of love and a relationship he never thought possible. And finally we get young daughter Claire, a highschooler who learns of her father's death immediately after trying crystal meth for the first time.What made the show initially entertaining and oh-so-watchable, is the effects of death on all the characters. They deal with everyone else's grief better than their own, as they are distant from it; it's a business. But as the series rolls on, Nate learns that they are here to do more than business. The dead visit the family in ethereal form, teaching them very tough lessons (from how to stand up for yourself, to dealing with a SIDS death). Even the family's father Nathaniel, who started out dead in the beginning episode, turns up at crossroads and tries to help them deal with difficulties.The series starts out with a bang and keeps going for the first several episodes. Most viewers will be glued to their TV's, wondering what's going to happen next; a tribute to writer/director Alan Ball. But toward the latter half of the first season the series goes a bit astray. The initial enjoyment of watching how death affects the family is swapped for a more soap opera style plot that delves into how the characters effect other characters. Although this isn't horrible, it isn't as gripping as the show's initial premise. Gone are the dead's visitations (mostly), as are the quirky commercials for hearse sales and corpse foundation putty.But even with these issues there's still a certain pull that the series has thanks to some strong writing and the deadly subject matter. The big question, though, is is it worth going on to season two?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-148

ur7704831

title: Nothing Brings A Family Together Like Death review: The wonderful thing about cable TV is that it can get away with a lot more than primetime television. Most people know this from watching such things as THE SOPRANOS. Sex, drugs, gore. Nothing is "too much" for them.And SIX FEET UNDER follows this example but by focusing on the Fisher family, a truly messed up group of undertakers who own/operate a funeral home in southern California.Each episode opens with the death of someone, and this sets up the premise for that week's show.The very first episode starts with the death of the Fisher patriarch, Nathanial Fisher (Richard Jenkins, RUMOR HAS IT). He's driving home a new hearse when it is struck by a bus, killing him instantly. He leaves behind his wife Ruth (Frances Conroy, THE AVIATOR), his eldest son David (Michael C. Hall, PAYCHECK), his younger son Nate (Peter Krause, THE TRUMAN SHOW), and high school daughter Claire (Lauren Ambrose, PARTY OF FIVE TV series). This was a very effective way to get "into" the Fisher family from a viewer's standpoint. Nothing pulls a family together like the death of one of its closest members. Although they were coming together anyway for Christmas, the Fisher's are now forced to deal with each other on a very tight level. David has been working at the funeral home all his life and feels that his life may have been wasted. He also has to deal with his homosexuality and his inability to "come out of the closet" to his family and friends. His love for officer Keith Charles (Mathew St. Patrick, REUNION TV series) is felt throughout the series, and is on and off thanks to David's psychological hurdles. Matriarch Ruth comes out to the family on her own as she tells them about an affair she'd been having for some time with a hairdresser (male); this comes out during the viewing of her husband as he awaits internment. Younger son Nate gets news of his father's death while having sex with a stranger (Rachel Griffiths, VERY ANNIE MARY) in an airport maintenance closet. We soon learn that her name is Brenda and with her comes an entirely new set of baggage for Nate in the form of love and a relationship he never thought possible. And finally we get young daughter Claire, a highschooler who learns of her father's death immediately after trying crystal meth for the first time.What made the show initially entertaining and oh-so-watchable, is the effects of death on all the characters. They deal with everyone else's grief better than their own, as they are distant from it; it's a business. But as the series rolls on, Nate learns that they are here to do more than business. The dead visit the family in ethereal form, teaching them very tough lessons (from how to stand up for yourself, to dealing with a SIDS death). Even the family's father Nathaniel, who started out dead in the beginning episode, turns up at crossroads and tries to help them deal with difficulties.The series starts out with a bang and keeps going for the first several episodes. Most viewers will be glued to their TV's, wondering what's going to happen next; a tribute to writer/director Alan Ball. But toward the latter half of the first season the series goes a bit astray. The initial enjoyment of watching how death affects the family is swapped for a more soap opera style plot that delves into how the characters effect other characters. Although this isn't horrible, it isn't as gripping as the show's initial premise. Gone are the dead's visitations (mostly), as are the quirky commercials for hearse sales and corpse foundation putty.But even with these issues there's still a certain pull that the series has thanks to some strong writing and the deadly subject matter. The big question, though, is is it worth going on to season two?

They should invent eye-diapers for those who laugh too much

tt0248654

Full and total! The series is all there in 25 DVDs and 63 episodes. It is morbid but in many ways absolutely hilarious. Morbid because it only deals with dead people since it takes place in a funeral home. Morbid also because the family that owns the funeral parlor and the family of their Latino associate or partner are so taken up by these deadly and lethal circumstances that they lose their minds and their sanity that get locked up in some coffin. In other words their lives are nothing but a parade of hearses.You will enjoy the four main women in this film who are so hysterical and so out of control that you could not spend five minutes with them without them jumping onto you for various violent activities from hitting you to beating you down, to humping you (that is called rape) and refusing any advances from you, men or women, after they have captured your attention and now they detain your bodies. The best one is in the first episode, Mrs. Fisher, the mother calling her husband who is driving a hearse right then to tell him to crush the cigarette she is sure he is smoking, which is true. He does so and gets another one out and when he tries to light it up he runs into a bus. Good morning Mr. Reaper. It is hilarious when you are confronted at the beginning of each episode with the death of one, two or three, or even more, people who are going to get into the mortuary. You cannot imagine how people can die. There are some berserk and completely insane ways of doing it. Dying is a fine art.It is hilarious because one child is made by accident out of wedlock and another after many attempts and even a miscarriage. The elder Fisher son is responsible for the first accident and he marries the woman who used to be his best friend in high school or college, or whatever. But one day she disappears and many episodes later the truth will come up: it is so sordid that it becomes hilariously impossible. Then the poor Nate, Nathaniel Samuel, will finally marry and have a second daughter with the woman he met in the first episode on the plane from Seattle to Los Angeles on Christmas eve who dragged him nearly forcefully into the rest rooms or some other cupboard to have a kinky episode of rump riding on the sly in the fast lane.That relation is just plain absurd. It is marrying fire and water or lemon juice and milk together. It gets sour in a jiffy and they break up and then they go back on the sly, and they announce a first marriage and they have to cancel it and then they will announce a second marriage and that will end in death and sourness. But what a trip around and around the maypole, you can see what I designate with this fairly friendly English device called a maypole with hams and other prizes at the top, if you can climb that high!Imagine now the younger son who is a closet gay man who comes out of the closet without opening the door that is locked up anyway and they seem to have thrown the key away. He is just as much wavering as his brother about what he is looking for, who is looking for, and many other issues. These two gay men (plus a few more sidekicks) are making everything difficult, even kissing or holding their hands. And they only want to have children, and that too is an adventure. If you do not laugh it's because you are slightly tight on the gay side. It's never gay offensive but it is gay hilarious. You might be influenced into getting gay for the fun of it and the great enchanting vivid trip into wonderland and along the yellow road of bricks.The sister, the youngest Fisher child, is even worse. She goes to art school and she starts having adventures. She is attracted by a lesbian woman and yet at the very moment when she should get active she panics and steps back. Imagine the situation. The lesbians actually are those who are shown as most distant from the core of the story. They remain marginal and unimportant.The mother and her lovers are by far the best. The mother wants in order not to want and to reject what she wants and is begging for without accepting it when it is offered to her on a platter. She is a Salome of some sort. She is afraid of any kind of amorous and sentimental bodily contact. And she is an obsessive compulsive cleaner and ordering busy beaver chasing dust, dirt and disorder. She is straightening up everything, everybody and everyone with her own crooked and twisted desires and she wonders why people are gesticulating around her when she whips them up and down with a cat-o'-nine-tails and pretends it is thorn-free roses.Enjoy the trip six feet under and be sure of one thing: there is no ladder to climb out of it. That's a real treat to die and it is a tearful great extravaganza for those who survive and have to inter the bodies in a way or another, even throw them to sharks if you can.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-267

ur3836774

title: They should invent eye-diapers for those who laugh too much review: Full and total! The series is all there in 25 DVDs and 63 episodes. It is morbid but in many ways absolutely hilarious. Morbid because it only deals with dead people since it takes place in a funeral home. Morbid also because the family that owns the funeral parlor and the family of their Latino associate or partner are so taken up by these deadly and lethal circumstances that they lose their minds and their sanity that get locked up in some coffin. In other words their lives are nothing but a parade of hearses.You will enjoy the four main women in this film who are so hysterical and so out of control that you could not spend five minutes with them without them jumping onto you for various violent activities from hitting you to beating you down, to humping you (that is called rape) and refusing any advances from you, men or women, after they have captured your attention and now they detain your bodies. The best one is in the first episode, Mrs. Fisher, the mother calling her husband who is driving a hearse right then to tell him to crush the cigarette she is sure he is smoking, which is true. He does so and gets another one out and when he tries to light it up he runs into a bus. Good morning Mr. Reaper. It is hilarious when you are confronted at the beginning of each episode with the death of one, two or three, or even more, people who are going to get into the mortuary. You cannot imagine how people can die. There are some berserk and completely insane ways of doing it. Dying is a fine art.It is hilarious because one child is made by accident out of wedlock and another after many attempts and even a miscarriage. The elder Fisher son is responsible for the first accident and he marries the woman who used to be his best friend in high school or college, or whatever. But one day she disappears and many episodes later the truth will come up: it is so sordid that it becomes hilariously impossible. Then the poor Nate, Nathaniel Samuel, will finally marry and have a second daughter with the woman he met in the first episode on the plane from Seattle to Los Angeles on Christmas eve who dragged him nearly forcefully into the rest rooms or some other cupboard to have a kinky episode of rump riding on the sly in the fast lane.That relation is just plain absurd. It is marrying fire and water or lemon juice and milk together. It gets sour in a jiffy and they break up and then they go back on the sly, and they announce a first marriage and they have to cancel it and then they will announce a second marriage and that will end in death and sourness. But what a trip around and around the maypole, you can see what I designate with this fairly friendly English device called a maypole with hams and other prizes at the top, if you can climb that high!Imagine now the younger son who is a closet gay man who comes out of the closet without opening the door that is locked up anyway and they seem to have thrown the key away. He is just as much wavering as his brother about what he is looking for, who is looking for, and many other issues. These two gay men (plus a few more sidekicks) are making everything difficult, even kissing or holding their hands. And they only want to have children, and that too is an adventure. If you do not laugh it's because you are slightly tight on the gay side. It's never gay offensive but it is gay hilarious. You might be influenced into getting gay for the fun of it and the great enchanting vivid trip into wonderland and along the yellow road of bricks.The sister, the youngest Fisher child, is even worse. She goes to art school and she starts having adventures. She is attracted by a lesbian woman and yet at the very moment when she should get active she panics and steps back. Imagine the situation. The lesbians actually are those who are shown as most distant from the core of the story. They remain marginal and unimportant.The mother and her lovers are by far the best. The mother wants in order not to want and to reject what she wants and is begging for without accepting it when it is offered to her on a platter. She is a Salome of some sort. She is afraid of any kind of amorous and sentimental bodily contact. And she is an obsessive compulsive cleaner and ordering busy beaver chasing dust, dirt and disorder. She is straightening up everything, everybody and everyone with her own crooked and twisted desires and she wonders why people are gesticulating around her when she whips them up and down with a cat-o'-nine-tails and pretends it is thorn-free roses.Enjoy the trip six feet under and be sure of one thing: there is no ladder to climb out of it. That's a real treat to die and it is a tearful great extravaganza for those who survive and have to inter the bodies in a way or another, even throw them to sharks if you can.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

This Show Does The Impossible

tt0248654

When using superlatives with this show it is totally fair. This show does something all other movies, shows, etc cannot do: it can safely apply any genre and still function as a deep and very entertaining show. As everybody episode goes by the show only becomes more addictive. It taps into almost every aspect of life. Every emotion is shown; love, hate, forgiveness, triumph and the list goes on and on. In fact this show depicts life the most realistically. The strangeness and peculiarity of the many themes perfectly displays the confusion in life and how it affects us. The show displays confusion in the clearest way making it almost impossible not to some how relate to the characters in the show. Not to mention also the series ends on one finest note you will ever see not just satisfying the viewer but taking the show to a level far and above anything else I have ever seen before. This show does the impossible twice over.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-193

ur16117882

title: This Show Does The Impossible review: When using superlatives with this show it is totally fair. This show does something all other movies, shows, etc cannot do: it can safely apply any genre and still function as a deep and very entertaining show. As everybody episode goes by the show only becomes more addictive. It taps into almost every aspect of life. Every emotion is shown; love, hate, forgiveness, triumph and the list goes on and on. In fact this show depicts life the most realistically. The strangeness and peculiarity of the many themes perfectly displays the confusion in life and how it affects us. The show displays confusion in the clearest way making it almost impossible not to some how relate to the characters in the show. Not to mention also the series ends on one finest note you will ever see not just satisfying the viewer but taking the show to a level far and above anything else I have ever seen before. This show does the impossible twice over.

You Will Find Its Rewards Owed No More Than a Handful of Superlatives That Do Justice

tt0248654

Alan Ball's Peabody-winning seriocomic five-season saga is about a family with a particular blessing in disguise. Three siblings have spent their childhoods growing up with death ceaselessly in their home. And as a part of the business of death, they are on the receiving end of the grief and shock of murders, diseases, accidents and old age suffered by the loved ones of complete strangers (mostly). Each episode, save a baby's handful of significant ones, opens with the death of any given person, caused by anything from gang shootings or heart attack to too much LSD, and that death generally sets the pitch for its episode, pressing the characters to consider their present fortunes and hardships in a manner that is clarified by the death and its aftermath.Their customers' loved ones sprawled out in their birthday suits in the basement, which for decades has never had a break from the presence of lifeless rotting corpses with which the Fishers and their frustrated reconstructionist Rico become intimately acquainted during the exhuming process. This is the last environment in which most people---really, all people like Nathaniel Fisher, Sr.'s wife and children---would ever want to live their lives. However, they learn more about the realities of the world's two biggest fears, life and death, than the rest of us will ever confront. How does your old friend from high school run over himself? How does one deal with never knowing how and why your husband, wife, daughter, son, mother, father died so suddenly? The situations, circumstances, philosophies and moral dilemmas are endless.The catch-22 is that even though the Fishers and those close to them are reasonably wiser, they are not all necessarily stronger. Some become more reticent, or more resigned, or face more and more demons, or they cannot seem to do anything that doesn't feel like a waste of their time to exist.To a significant degree, the show is a square family drama, taking in hand such concerns as relationships, betrayal, and religion. In chorus, it is a show characterized by its unwavering spotlight on the upsetting matter of death. This notably Bergmanesque melodrama also has a pungent dose of black comedy, the element of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non- sequiturs. Time and again watching the show, one is shocked by its admirable run on the American air. US audiences don't tend to seek out shows in their free time about their worst fears, dealt with in heavy symbolic and cerebral ways and wracking you with longing, rage and tears. But the show is one of the healthiest, most cathartic things you could do in front of the television set. It makes you accept death. It causes you to reflect on the pros and cons of one's own situation just as the Fishers do every day. I, for one, am frequently bothered by the ambivalence of purpose to existence as a whole, and, while many would much rather escape into the worlds of Monk, Bones, Psych and other fluffy shows, I feel comforted by the likeminded company of these self-reflexive characters and their journeys through fatalism, existentialism, epiphany, joy and pain, especially when they do not belong to a commonly sensationalized world like crime or policework or sports. Rather, they are what many TV viewers I know would find repellant as characters to face each week. And these characters know this.There is not only a lot of tremendous talent but tremendous wisdom at work in this show, from the cast of both actors I already knew, like Rachel Griffiths, Freddy Rodriguez, James Cromwell, Patricia Clarkson and Kathy Bates, and remarkable actors I was just discovering, like Peter Krause, Michael C. Hall, Lauren Ambrose, Frances Conroy and Matthew St. Patrick, to the out-of-the-box master writers, Nancy Oliver and the show's Oscar-winning creator Ball.There are times when this show seems to drag, as surreal and genre-bending as it relentlessly is. Griffiths seems to always be having sex with someone. Lauren Ambrose indulges every narcissistic or pretentious pitfall of her, and my, generation. No one can seem to escape tactless, unpredictable pain and pain never seems to escape anyone's addicted control. Just know that if you persist till the show's finale, you will find its rewards owed no more than a handful of superlatives that do justice.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/reviews-189

ur8625456

title: You Will Find Its Rewards Owed No More Than a Handful of Superlatives That Do Justice review: Alan Ball's Peabody-winning seriocomic five-season saga is about a family with a particular blessing in disguise. Three siblings have spent their childhoods growing up with death ceaselessly in their home. And as a part of the business of death, they are on the receiving end of the grief and shock of murders, diseases, accidents and old age suffered by the loved ones of complete strangers (mostly). Each episode, save a baby's handful of significant ones, opens with the death of any given person, caused by anything from gang shootings or heart attack to too much LSD, and that death generally sets the pitch for its episode, pressing the characters to consider their present fortunes and hardships in a manner that is clarified by the death and its aftermath.Their customers' loved ones sprawled out in their birthday suits in the basement, which for decades has never had a break from the presence of lifeless rotting corpses with which the Fishers and their frustrated reconstructionist Rico become intimately acquainted during the exhuming process. This is the last environment in which most people---really, all people like Nathaniel Fisher, Sr.'s wife and children---would ever want to live their lives. However, they learn more about the realities of the world's two biggest fears, life and death, than the rest of us will ever confront. How does your old friend from high school run over himself? How does one deal with never knowing how and why your husband, wife, daughter, son, mother, father died so suddenly? The situations, circumstances, philosophies and moral dilemmas are endless.The catch-22 is that even though the Fishers and those close to them are reasonably wiser, they are not all necessarily stronger. Some become more reticent, or more resigned, or face more and more demons, or they cannot seem to do anything that doesn't feel like a waste of their time to exist.To a significant degree, the show is a square family drama, taking in hand such concerns as relationships, betrayal, and religion. In chorus, it is a show characterized by its unwavering spotlight on the upsetting matter of death. This notably Bergmanesque melodrama also has a pungent dose of black comedy, the element of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non- sequiturs. Time and again watching the show, one is shocked by its admirable run on the American air. US audiences don't tend to seek out shows in their free time about their worst fears, dealt with in heavy symbolic and cerebral ways and wracking you with longing, rage and tears. But the show is one of the healthiest, most cathartic things you could do in front of the television set. It makes you accept death. It causes you to reflect on the pros and cons of one's own situation just as the Fishers do every day. I, for one, am frequently bothered by the ambivalence of purpose to existence as a whole, and, while many would much rather escape into the worlds of Monk, Bones, Psych and other fluffy shows, I feel comforted by the likeminded company of these self-reflexive characters and their journeys through fatalism, existentialism, epiphany, joy and pain, especially when they do not belong to a commonly sensationalized world like crime or policework or sports. Rather, they are what many TV viewers I know would find repellant as characters to face each week. And these characters know this.There is not only a lot of tremendous talent but tremendous wisdom at work in this show, from the cast of both actors I already knew, like Rachel Griffiths, Freddy Rodriguez, James Cromwell, Patricia Clarkson and Kathy Bates, and remarkable actors I was just discovering, like Peter Krause, Michael C. Hall, Lauren Ambrose, Frances Conroy and Matthew St. Patrick, to the out-of-the-box master writers, Nancy Oliver and the show's Oscar-winning creator Ball.There are times when this show seems to drag, as surreal and genre-bending as it relentlessly is. Griffiths seems to always be having sex with someone. Lauren Ambrose indulges every narcissistic or pretentious pitfall of her, and my, generation. No one can seem to escape tactless, unpredictable pain and pain never seems to escape anyone's addicted control. Just know that if you persist till the show's finale, you will find its rewards owed no more than a handful of superlatives that do justice.

As good as it gets

tt0455275

This may very well be the best TV series I've ever seen, at least in terms of riveting suspense. It's not a high-quality serious drama, like THE SOPRANOS or THE WIRE. It's not a study of police corruption, like THE SHIELD. I don't know if will become an iconic cult show, like Star Trek or the X-Files. But nothing beats PRISON BREAK for sheer nail-biting suspense.The basic setup is far-fetched but simple. Structural engineer Michael Scofield robs a bank and lets himself be caught, so he can break his brother out of prison. Lincoln, his brother, has been sentenced to death and has run out of appeals.I've just started Season Two. The only problem with Season One is that after watching a couple of episodes, nothing else satisfied. I was renting the series and waiting a couple of days between discs was torture. Even LOST didn't get me addicted that quickly or that deeply. I can't imagine waiting one week between episodes, as I'll have to once I get caught up to the current season.I'm still not sure how the writers can stretch out this premise for four season, but so far they haven't run out of surprises. While there are plenty of coincidences, plot holes, and the occasional clichéd situation, none of those things matter because the characters are well realized, the drama is taut, and the suspense never lets up.This may not be prestigious drama like SIX FEET UNDER or THE SOPRANOS, but when it comes to rip-snorting action entertainment, there's nothing that comes close.If you haven't watched it, I strongly recommend not reading any posts on this board until you're caught up. I guarantee things will happen that you will not see coming.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-289

ur3754831

title: As good as it gets review: This may very well be the best TV series I've ever seen, at least in terms of riveting suspense. It's not a high-quality serious drama, like THE SOPRANOS or THE WIRE. It's not a study of police corruption, like THE SHIELD. I don't know if will become an iconic cult show, like Star Trek or the X-Files. But nothing beats PRISON BREAK for sheer nail-biting suspense.The basic setup is far-fetched but simple. Structural engineer Michael Scofield robs a bank and lets himself be caught, so he can break his brother out of prison. Lincoln, his brother, has been sentenced to death and has run out of appeals.I've just started Season Two. The only problem with Season One is that after watching a couple of episodes, nothing else satisfied. I was renting the series and waiting a couple of days between discs was torture. Even LOST didn't get me addicted that quickly or that deeply. I can't imagine waiting one week between episodes, as I'll have to once I get caught up to the current season.I'm still not sure how the writers can stretch out this premise for four season, but so far they haven't run out of surprises. While there are plenty of coincidences, plot holes, and the occasional clichéd situation, none of those things matter because the characters are well realized, the drama is taut, and the suspense never lets up.This may not be prestigious drama like SIX FEET UNDER or THE SOPRANOS, but when it comes to rip-snorting action entertainment, there's nothing that comes close.If you haven't watched it, I strongly recommend not reading any posts on this board until you're caught up. I guarantee things will happen that you will not see coming.

a poor suspension of disbelief

tt0455275

And here we go... Since no one bothered to rate this 1/10 i felt compelled to do so. Not that this series in itself deserves a 1/10 but on the voters-balance it might deserve just that.I only watched about 4 episodes of the series and i found myself increasingly annoyed with credibility issues which in itself is nothing any series should be ashamed of. U either like something or u don't and acting has come a long way since the 1930s. When someone suggested this series to me and explained the tagline, it immediately occurred to me that it might have been a little weak to base a complete series on. It was just that. I had a white-tunnel experience with scenes in it featuring Tim Robbins and even 'Sly' Stallone from movies i quite liked. No wonder, cause the basic theme here is escape, something we all try to do 24/7 but never succeed in.The problem with Prison Break is that the whole thing is based on something I've seen in episodes of kNight Rider or James Bond. A government plot to frame some poor dude in favor of some conspiracy...oh please... The plan to break the dear brother out just before his brain is turned into mush has holes in it the size of a small solar system. Not to mention the elaborate clichés of the pederast inmate, the 'brothers' vs the whiteboys and the prison guard who came straight from hell. There is a limit to recycling clichés and this series reached that limit right after the 3rd episode.In my opinion the basic foundation of any series or film should be something which suspends disbelief, otherwise call it a b-movie keeping it down to only 2 hours of footage and try to lure viewers by placing some onelining lies on the cover which makes u believe it actually is the next best thing after Pulp Fiction. If the foundation is feeble it will take down what's build on top of it and highly recommended as this it came, this series just collapsed right through the floor my TV was standing on.Just go see "OZ" if u want a good prisonseries.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-97

ur7969168

title: a poor suspension of disbelief review: And here we go... Since no one bothered to rate this 1/10 i felt compelled to do so. Not that this series in itself deserves a 1/10 but on the voters-balance it might deserve just that.I only watched about 4 episodes of the series and i found myself increasingly annoyed with credibility issues which in itself is nothing any series should be ashamed of. U either like something or u don't and acting has come a long way since the 1930s. When someone suggested this series to me and explained the tagline, it immediately occurred to me that it might have been a little weak to base a complete series on. It was just that. I had a white-tunnel experience with scenes in it featuring Tim Robbins and even 'Sly' Stallone from movies i quite liked. No wonder, cause the basic theme here is escape, something we all try to do 24/7 but never succeed in.The problem with Prison Break is that the whole thing is based on something I've seen in episodes of kNight Rider or James Bond. A government plot to frame some poor dude in favor of some conspiracy...oh please... The plan to break the dear brother out just before his brain is turned into mush has holes in it the size of a small solar system. Not to mention the elaborate clichés of the pederast inmate, the 'brothers' vs the whiteboys and the prison guard who came straight from hell. There is a limit to recycling clichés and this series reached that limit right after the 3rd episode.In my opinion the basic foundation of any series or film should be something which suspends disbelief, otherwise call it a b-movie keeping it down to only 2 hours of footage and try to lure viewers by placing some onelining lies on the cover which makes u believe it actually is the next best thing after Pulp Fiction. If the foundation is feeble it will take down what's build on top of it and highly recommended as this it came, this series just collapsed right through the floor my TV was standing on.Just go see "OZ" if u want a good prisonseries.

Intelligence has never looked 'Cooler'...

tt0455275

Lincoln Burrows is a thug who has been sent to Deathrow for the murder of the 'Vice-Presidents' brother. All the evidence points to guilty, yet Michael, Lincoln's little brother is adamant that Linc is innocent and puts together a mind-boggling plan of infiltration and escape.Yes, this is a story of a man trying to escape the 'Hell' that is prison. But with a difference, Michael tattoo's his entire plan on his body; hidden by images of demons and chapels with angels.I was deeply fascinated by the first season and lost interest half-way through the second and decided to watch the show after it finished. And I have to say I'm impressed at how the story goes on and on. I've heard people say the third season is repetitive but I found it fascinating and how Michael changes his plan to fit his new surroundings.The fourth season was a little 'Out-there'...Everyone who seemed to die, came back which made it a little annoying and implementing the 'Mother' was a little confusing.I loved Mahone from the first moment, he was just as clever as Michael and more ruthless. I loved his change through the seasons from 'Pursuer' to 'Killer' to 'Protector' to 'loyal friend'.Michael is a character who you would definitely want as your friend or uncle, able to make a plan out of the littlest of resources.And Bellick's change of persona was quite tear-jerking; how fragile he becomes in season four and makes the ultimate decision for justice.I feel I should mention T-Bag, simply because of Mister Knepper, who is dazzling on screen as the terrifying and charming at times killer.The script got a little bad and acting from the two lead actors, Wentworth Miller and Dominic Purcell were stale for a better word; they pulled it off.One word of warning....After season four finished with the episode, 'Killing your number' don't watch the next two episodes...Leave it at that.... The next two episodes definitely wreck a series that starts strong and finishes strong..

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-324

ur8131454

title: Intelligence has never looked 'Cooler'... review: Lincoln Burrows is a thug who has been sent to Deathrow for the murder of the 'Vice-Presidents' brother. All the evidence points to guilty, yet Michael, Lincoln's little brother is adamant that Linc is innocent and puts together a mind-boggling plan of infiltration and escape.Yes, this is a story of a man trying to escape the 'Hell' that is prison. But with a difference, Michael tattoo's his entire plan on his body; hidden by images of demons and chapels with angels.I was deeply fascinated by the first season and lost interest half-way through the second and decided to watch the show after it finished. And I have to say I'm impressed at how the story goes on and on. I've heard people say the third season is repetitive but I found it fascinating and how Michael changes his plan to fit his new surroundings.The fourth season was a little 'Out-there'...Everyone who seemed to die, came back which made it a little annoying and implementing the 'Mother' was a little confusing.I loved Mahone from the first moment, he was just as clever as Michael and more ruthless. I loved his change through the seasons from 'Pursuer' to 'Killer' to 'Protector' to 'loyal friend'.Michael is a character who you would definitely want as your friend or uncle, able to make a plan out of the littlest of resources.And Bellick's change of persona was quite tear-jerking; how fragile he becomes in season four and makes the ultimate decision for justice.I feel I should mention T-Bag, simply because of Mister Knepper, who is dazzling on screen as the terrifying and charming at times killer.The script got a little bad and acting from the two lead actors, Wentworth Miller and Dominic Purcell were stale for a better word; they pulled it off.One word of warning....After season four finished with the episode, 'Killing your number' don't watch the next two episodes...Leave it at that.... The next two episodes definitely wreck a series that starts strong and finishes strong..

Prison Break

tt0455275

I don't like most of the new TV shows, but Prison Break blew me away. Instead of making another copy of CSI or stupid shows about paranoid doctors who are in the hospitals just to make sick people even more sick, Prison Break delivers an interesting story about two brothers who are trying to escape from the prison and prove older brother's innocence in the political conspiracy. What I like about PB is that it's quite unpredictable show, the creators are not using same old clichés and most of the events in the show are well put together and most of them are making sense. Okay, PB is not showing the real life in prison, far away from that, but it's really entertaining and fresh TV show with unique story, decent acting and some of the best TV villains (T-Bag is the best one). This is one of the first new TV shows that I actually like and if you are sick of CSI, Dr. House and other boring shows the TV is forcing you to watch, you should see Prison Break, it's fantastic and entertaining TV show.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-295

ur16991786

title: Prison Break review: I don't like most of the new TV shows, but Prison Break blew me away. Instead of making another copy of CSI or stupid shows about paranoid doctors who are in the hospitals just to make sick people even more sick, Prison Break delivers an interesting story about two brothers who are trying to escape from the prison and prove older brother's innocence in the political conspiracy. What I like about PB is that it's quite unpredictable show, the creators are not using same old clichés and most of the events in the show are well put together and most of them are making sense. Okay, PB is not showing the real life in prison, far away from that, but it's really entertaining and fresh TV show with unique story, decent acting and some of the best TV villains (T-Bag is the best one). This is one of the first new TV shows that I actually like and if you are sick of CSI, Dr. House and other boring shows the TV is forcing you to watch, you should see Prison Break, it's fantastic and entertaining TV show.

Wow !!!

tt0455275

"Prison Break" is the best Drama-series ever ! I've just seen the first season and I hope that the second one will be as great !The plot is absolutely excellent, the watcher is constantly under pressure and after each episode you want to see the next one ! If you have problems with your heart, don't watch this show !Every character is endearing. My favorites are Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller), Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell), Fernando Sucre (Amaury Nolasco), John Abruzzi (Peter Stormare) and Charles Westmoreland (Muse Watson). But I really LOVE Dr. Sara Tancredi (Sarah Wayne Callies) !!! She's a great actress and she's SO beautiful !!!The bad guys are also well chosen, especially Special Agent Paul Kellerman (Paul Adelstein), "T-Bag" (Robert Knepper) and Captain Brad Bellick (Wade Williams). When you watch the show, you really want to kill them !So, a great, great show with an excellent plot and fantastic actors ! Go on like that, guys !

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-210

ur10395798

title: Wow !!! review: "Prison Break" is the best Drama-series ever ! I've just seen the first season and I hope that the second one will be as great !The plot is absolutely excellent, the watcher is constantly under pressure and after each episode you want to see the next one ! If you have problems with your heart, don't watch this show !Every character is endearing. My favorites are Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller), Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell), Fernando Sucre (Amaury Nolasco), John Abruzzi (Peter Stormare) and Charles Westmoreland (Muse Watson). But I really LOVE Dr. Sara Tancredi (Sarah Wayne Callies) !!! She's a great actress and she's SO beautiful !!!The bad guys are also well chosen, especially Special Agent Paul Kellerman (Paul Adelstein), "T-Bag" (Robert Knepper) and Captain Brad Bellick (Wade Williams). When you watch the show, you really want to kill them !So, a great, great show with an excellent plot and fantastic actors ! Go on like that, guys !

More than awesome, phenomenal!

tt0455275

[...] The full review is on amazon and my blog. [...] The last and essential dimension of this series is a study in loyalty, not allegiance which is not always rational, but loyalty. There are three types of loyalties. First the loyalty to the "company" and this one is nearly easy to counter: let them shoot the first bullet and then shoot them all down. And if you can capture one or two try to get into some exchange of arguments, even striking arguments if necessary, to make them change allegiances and then loyalties. But then you have the official services that are supposed to enforce the law, security services and justice. Both are supposed to develop a rational loyalty to the country, the fatherland, the motherland, the constitution, or whatever charter or declaration of universal human and civil rights. But how can you recognize at the bottom of the institution or outside that the order given to you is respectful of such principles, and such orders can come from a long may up the ladder of authority and if my boss tells me something he must have his good reasons to do so, and I have to obey, don't I? And then think within the frame of local police, state police, FBI, Homeland Security, Secret Services, Presidential Security and many others and you have the full picture. Think within the frame of elected officials of the police, justice, judicial administration, justice department, etc. Good luck at surviving in that maze.But the main loyalty is the loyalty you owe to those who have helped you in a difficult situation, those who have been your associates in some ethical project, even if it is to escape from a prison. And this loyalty is of course all the more powerful if we are speaking family. This started in 2005 like Supernatural and in both cases you have two brothers, the elder one less brainy, the younger one brainier, with a mother that disappeared in their young age. They are not real brothers, be it only because they family names are not the same, but they were raised together and after the disappearance of their mother, and later father, the elder one takes care of the younger one and even puts him through college and university to the level of engineer. But his means were not always very swift and they were often criminal. Those two brothers who are not brothers and yet are brothers have no mother till very late in the series and the mother is such a caricature that they can only deny her motherhood that she refuses anyway and what's more they do not have no father any more, though he makes a quick come back to disappear by falling on a bullet. The two series are so similar along that family line that there must have been some leak from the one to the other. But Prison Break is one story line and one plot, not episodes that have little to do with one another and a rather loose general line. Of course Prison Break has to come to an end, whereas Supernatural can last forever. The two brothers are Michael and Lincoln, just like the two brothers in Supernatural are supposed to be the vessels of archangel Michael and Lucifer. The parallel between Lincoln and Lucifer is of course hilarious but not gratuitous. Lincoln the liberator of the Blacks, Lucifer the liberator of the Apocalypse, of the human species once and for all, or till the next whimsical caprice of God who could recreate his imperfect creation a second time in a few eons. And the last episode is discreet about the death of Michael with one blood drop and a few light headaches, and then we skip four years and discover his son and Sara his wife but no father coming on his tomb with Alex, Sucre and Lincoln for some anniversary in some Central American country. The Final Break episode explains what happened and that episode is so phenomenally emotional with the post-mortem video message from Michael explaining why is not here any more. Absolutely beautiful. But also very Christian. The liberty of all and the punishment of the real criminal minds can only come through the sacrifice of one member of the team and the flight as fast and as far as possible of the only one that is menaced still, Sara, the Mary Magdalene of this modern Christ. Michael Scofield, MS in civil engineering, has to be sacrificed with his superior knowledge and intelligence. We will regret that in the final episode Lincoln's son is not brought back on his uncle's tomb with the rest of the family that includes Alex and Sucre who are not really members of the family. A brilliant experience.Jacques COULARDEAU

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-421

ur3836774

title: More than awesome, phenomenal! review: [...] The full review is on amazon and my blog. [...] The last and essential dimension of this series is a study in loyalty, not allegiance which is not always rational, but loyalty. There are three types of loyalties. First the loyalty to the "company" and this one is nearly easy to counter: let them shoot the first bullet and then shoot them all down. And if you can capture one or two try to get into some exchange of arguments, even striking arguments if necessary, to make them change allegiances and then loyalties. But then you have the official services that are supposed to enforce the law, security services and justice. Both are supposed to develop a rational loyalty to the country, the fatherland, the motherland, the constitution, or whatever charter or declaration of universal human and civil rights. But how can you recognize at the bottom of the institution or outside that the order given to you is respectful of such principles, and such orders can come from a long may up the ladder of authority and if my boss tells me something he must have his good reasons to do so, and I have to obey, don't I? And then think within the frame of local police, state police, FBI, Homeland Security, Secret Services, Presidential Security and many others and you have the full picture. Think within the frame of elected officials of the police, justice, judicial administration, justice department, etc. Good luck at surviving in that maze.But the main loyalty is the loyalty you owe to those who have helped you in a difficult situation, those who have been your associates in some ethical project, even if it is to escape from a prison. And this loyalty is of course all the more powerful if we are speaking family. This started in 2005 like Supernatural and in both cases you have two brothers, the elder one less brainy, the younger one brainier, with a mother that disappeared in their young age. They are not real brothers, be it only because they family names are not the same, but they were raised together and after the disappearance of their mother, and later father, the elder one takes care of the younger one and even puts him through college and university to the level of engineer. But his means were not always very swift and they were often criminal. Those two brothers who are not brothers and yet are brothers have no mother till very late in the series and the mother is such a caricature that they can only deny her motherhood that she refuses anyway and what's more they do not have no father any more, though he makes a quick come back to disappear by falling on a bullet. The two series are so similar along that family line that there must have been some leak from the one to the other. But Prison Break is one story line and one plot, not episodes that have little to do with one another and a rather loose general line. Of course Prison Break has to come to an end, whereas Supernatural can last forever. The two brothers are Michael and Lincoln, just like the two brothers in Supernatural are supposed to be the vessels of archangel Michael and Lucifer. The parallel between Lincoln and Lucifer is of course hilarious but not gratuitous. Lincoln the liberator of the Blacks, Lucifer the liberator of the Apocalypse, of the human species once and for all, or till the next whimsical caprice of God who could recreate his imperfect creation a second time in a few eons. And the last episode is discreet about the death of Michael with one blood drop and a few light headaches, and then we skip four years and discover his son and Sara his wife but no father coming on his tomb with Alex, Sucre and Lincoln for some anniversary in some Central American country. The Final Break episode explains what happened and that episode is so phenomenally emotional with the post-mortem video message from Michael explaining why is not here any more. Absolutely beautiful. But also very Christian. The liberty of all and the punishment of the real criminal minds can only come through the sacrifice of one member of the team and the flight as fast and as far as possible of the only one that is menaced still, Sara, the Mary Magdalene of this modern Christ. Michael Scofield, MS in civil engineering, has to be sacrificed with his superior knowledge and intelligence. We will regret that in the final episode Lincoln's son is not brought back on his uncle's tomb with the rest of the family that includes Alex and Sucre who are not really members of the family. A brilliant experience.Jacques COULARDEAU

Breaking free from the mold

tt0455275

You know how one show sets the bar for everything else to follow? Well, Prison Break is one of them. The show has intriguing plots, arresting cast and witty dialogs; all that is needed for one helluva series; and I can't get enough of it. I was initially reluctant to watch it because I had lost patience with 24 and Lost. But I am glad my hubby made me sit through two of the episodes...after that, I was hooked.The main character played by pretty boy Wentworth Miller (Michael Scofield) is aptly casted. He looked every part the upper-class, intelligent vigilante. But my favorites are Robert Knepper (T-Bag), the pedophile sociopath and Wade Williams (Capt. Bellick), the crooked chief correctional officer of Fox Rivers. Knepper has the best one-liners and Williams played the correctional officer to a T. Both are very interesting to watch; their acting effortless.Another "star" of the cast is of course, Michael's full sleeved tattoos. Its an art form in its own right and with intriguing secrets etched in the pictures. We have found new ways to use tattoos and I am sure, this will be the beginning of a new fad.Overall, this series is set to be a classic favorite. It broke free from the mold of an atypical series and the risk was worth it. Watch it and enjoy the ride.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-203

ur1679531

title: Breaking free from the mold review: You know how one show sets the bar for everything else to follow? Well, Prison Break is one of them. The show has intriguing plots, arresting cast and witty dialogs; all that is needed for one helluva series; and I can't get enough of it. I was initially reluctant to watch it because I had lost patience with 24 and Lost. But I am glad my hubby made me sit through two of the episodes...after that, I was hooked.The main character played by pretty boy Wentworth Miller (Michael Scofield) is aptly casted. He looked every part the upper-class, intelligent vigilante. But my favorites are Robert Knepper (T-Bag), the pedophile sociopath and Wade Williams (Capt. Bellick), the crooked chief correctional officer of Fox Rivers. Knepper has the best one-liners and Williams played the correctional officer to a T. Both are very interesting to watch; their acting effortless.Another "star" of the cast is of course, Michael's full sleeved tattoos. Its an art form in its own right and with intriguing secrets etched in the pictures. We have found new ways to use tattoos and I am sure, this will be the beginning of a new fad.Overall, this series is set to be a classic favorite. It broke free from the mold of an atypical series and the risk was worth it. Watch it and enjoy the ride.

Faded Glory

tt0455275

If I were able to rate each season individually then it would look something like this: Season 1 : 9 Season 2 : 8 Season 3 : 6 Season 4 : 3Prison Break started off like gangbusters. The premise was excellent as well as the execution. Season 1 was thoroughly compelling and evoked a myriad of emotions. I was captivated and anxious for each episode.Season 2 was also gripping although it began to lay down some trends that would be repeated throughout the rest of the show's duration. Even though they were on "the outside", the show still followed Scoffield's carefully laid plans and added some extra obstacles with the bloodhound Mahone in pursuit.Season 3 seemed too contrived but still I had already invested too much time to the first two seasons to get off now. Where seasons 1 and 2 were heavily dependent upon Scoffield's brilliant plan, season 3 was largely improvisational and seemed like all parties fumbled their way through. It was around the middle of season 3 that I began to see how unsustainable the show really was. I mean, it's called Prison Break; once you break out... what else is there? It's not like he's going to go prison hopping just to keep breaking out.Season 4 was simply a soap opera and had strayed far from the original premise. By season 4 the show should have been called "Fugitive" or "Days of Our Lives" because it had very little to do with a prison break. This season was so convoluted and absurd that I doubt there would have been a successful bounce back from it even if they were given the OK to make a fifth season. People coming back from the dead, the company being less professional, and the oh-so annoying theme of: I-have-what-you-need-so-you-can't-kill-me trend. T-Bag played that card so much that I was beginning to wonder if it was the Scoffield/T-Bag show. This season had so many predictable and unpredictable twists and turns that M. Night Shayamlan would've even balked at it. Not to mention the very anti-climactic ending of one last prison break?!I've always believed that it's not how you start but how you finish. Based upon this axiom I was even more disappointed with Prison Break. It seems like the writers only had a two season plan and after that they were just winging it. Too bad such a novel show had to end the way it did. This show would have been a lot better as a mini-series or even just a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-403

ur3670492

title: Faded Glory review: If I were able to rate each season individually then it would look something like this: Season 1 : 9 Season 2 : 8 Season 3 : 6 Season 4 : 3Prison Break started off like gangbusters. The premise was excellent as well as the execution. Season 1 was thoroughly compelling and evoked a myriad of emotions. I was captivated and anxious for each episode.Season 2 was also gripping although it began to lay down some trends that would be repeated throughout the rest of the show's duration. Even though they were on "the outside", the show still followed Scoffield's carefully laid plans and added some extra obstacles with the bloodhound Mahone in pursuit.Season 3 seemed too contrived but still I had already invested too much time to the first two seasons to get off now. Where seasons 1 and 2 were heavily dependent upon Scoffield's brilliant plan, season 3 was largely improvisational and seemed like all parties fumbled their way through. It was around the middle of season 3 that I began to see how unsustainable the show really was. I mean, it's called Prison Break; once you break out... what else is there? It's not like he's going to go prison hopping just to keep breaking out.Season 4 was simply a soap opera and had strayed far from the original premise. By season 4 the show should have been called "Fugitive" or "Days of Our Lives" because it had very little to do with a prison break. This season was so convoluted and absurd that I doubt there would have been a successful bounce back from it even if they were given the OK to make a fifth season. People coming back from the dead, the company being less professional, and the oh-so annoying theme of: I-have-what-you-need-so-you-can't-kill-me trend. T-Bag played that card so much that I was beginning to wonder if it was the Scoffield/T-Bag show. This season had so many predictable and unpredictable twists and turns that M. Night Shayamlan would've even balked at it. Not to mention the very anti-climactic ending of one last prison break?!I've always believed that it's not how you start but how you finish. Based upon this axiom I was even more disappointed with Prison Break. It seems like the writers only had a two season plan and after that they were just winging it. Too bad such a novel show had to end the way it did. This show would have been a lot better as a mini-series or even just a movie.

Spectacular first season, and it's decent afterwards

tt0455275

This show started freaking awesome, in fact when it comes to the first season. It was one of the most entertainment I have ever got from a TV show. But as the seasons go, it just didn't have the story to keep it consistent. As a matter of fact, despite this show having one of the best season in TV show history. It starts to falter and become way too ridiculous as the seasons go. Season 2 is the second best and is actually good. The third season is probably the worst one. And just seemed to have been thrown in, just to keep the show going. It's like the makers and writers had a great idea for the first season. But just didn't have enough to juice out more of it. Or maybe it's because the writers went on strike because they felt like they weren't getting paid enough. Season 4 starts out good, at least entertaining for the first half. But started to go down hill, with a disappointing and cheesy conclusion. Like I said the first season is awesome, and will hook just about anyone. But if you want the same momentum going until it's over, will be left disappointed. I give this one a 8.4 for it's spectacular first season and decent seasons afterwards.8.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-426

ur22171966

title: Spectacular first season, and it's decent afterwards review: This show started freaking awesome, in fact when it comes to the first season. It was one of the most entertainment I have ever got from a TV show. But as the seasons go, it just didn't have the story to keep it consistent. As a matter of fact, despite this show having one of the best season in TV show history. It starts to falter and become way too ridiculous as the seasons go. Season 2 is the second best and is actually good. The third season is probably the worst one. And just seemed to have been thrown in, just to keep the show going. It's like the makers and writers had a great idea for the first season. But just didn't have enough to juice out more of it. Or maybe it's because the writers went on strike because they felt like they weren't getting paid enough. Season 4 starts out good, at least entertaining for the first half. But started to go down hill, with a disappointing and cheesy conclusion. Like I said the first season is awesome, and will hook just about anyone. But if you want the same momentum going until it's over, will be left disappointed. I give this one a 8.4 for it's spectacular first season and decent seasons afterwards.8.4/10

A Thrill Ride With a few Obvious Speed Bumps

tt0455275

I was surfing around Netflix the other day and I noticed Prison Break. Now there was a good show, at least for the first two seasons. As you can tell from the title this is a crime drama about a brother who was imprisoned for murdering the Governors brother. Naturally he was set up and his younger brother decides to break the law, go into prison, and break him out. This is an insane premise that really works. Prison Break has a cast of very different characters with different backgrounds and the prison life is well represented in the very first season.Michael Scofield is a mastermind behind the entire show. His character is the driving force throughout the whole show. He was an engineer before he went to save his brother and it just so happens that he designed the prison they are both in and he has the blueprints and his entire escape plan tattooed onto his body. At the end of the plot episode that is what we learn and that sets the tone for an intense series with constant action, plot twists, and so on. The inmates Michael interacts with and eventually escapes with really bring a lot to the show. Michael is the brains. Linc, his brother, is the brawn. John Abruzzi is the mob boss that is represented in every prison drama, Sucre Michael's cell mate, and of course, T-Bag. I'm forgetting some characters but those are the main ones. T-Bag is the pedophile and vile human being that never goes away. He is a disgusting and slippery man who is very tricky. He does amazing things for the show but with every episode I was waiting for him to get what he deserves. In the middle of the first season and even in the second season we see a human side of him. We understand his background and how he got in prison in the first place. After we dig into his character you start to pity him and even feel sorry. That storyline ends and is never brought back. The writers ran that story as long as they could but this show had a lot of faults.The first season was one in which you are at the edge of your seats. The twists and turns and life in the prison made the show very addicting. Any idiot can predict the end of the first season is the inmates escaping and the second season is the manhunt. The second season was not as good as the first but it was a thrill ride with more twists and turns. The third season was completely ridiculous and just filler that failed. The first season was really focused on the prison and escaping while unraveling the mystery of "the company" but more on that later. The second season was the manhunt with the addition of the extremely underrated actor, William Fichtner. He is a really good actor and he delivers in this series from the second season to the very last episode. The third season brings it back to a prison and it was disappointing. The writers really ran out of ideas and it almost worked until the first episode of the fourth season when in the first ten minutes something happens which makes the entire third season irrelevant. Then the fourth season is about bringing down the company and at least the series ends strong in the fourth season. The show lost its roots and the story got very far-fetched and unbelievable. Michael had a plan for everything and was essentially a genius but he did not expect to fall in love. A big part to his escape plan was the infirmary and there he meets Dr. Sarah Tancredi. Sarah Wayne Callies does a really good job playing the former junkie doctor in the series. Michael planned to use her but he fell in love and she becomes a key character in the series. As important as she was she becomes completely AWOL in the third season. We see her in the season finale of the second season and then she disappears. She was a main character in the first two seasons and then she is gone. Writers have to write characters off but she was a main character and the third season is the chink in the armor and almost destroys this series. As I mentioned earlier, the company sets up Linc for the murder and is the evil force in the entire series. While Michael and Linc are inside in the 1st season their friend who is a lawyer digs into the company and uncovers a conspiracy that lasts throughout the show. This is where the writing reaches its peak because this is where the plot twists come in. As Michael discovers what is happening he has to think and rethink how to defeat the company. He doesn't have anything in his tattoos to take down a government power. The tattoos were another thing I loved about the show but they also disappear after the second season. They become irrelevant and it was like the death of a character. Anyway, the company is the superpower that is almost indestructible and they are in charge. Company Agents are terrible people but really smart. They are a villain in a suit and they answer to The General. The General becomes important as the show progresses and is really a breath of fresh air towards the end of the show. Overall, Prison Break is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen but it has obvious flaws I cannot ignore. The third season was a mess with poor writing and irrelevance of characters. The show started off strong, slipped, and had a strong finish. They had plans for a 5th season but it didn't happen and became a TV movie instead. Thank god, because that would have been bad. Prison Break gets the WillyT Honorable Mention.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-406

ur26976606

title: A Thrill Ride With a few Obvious Speed Bumps review: I was surfing around Netflix the other day and I noticed Prison Break. Now there was a good show, at least for the first two seasons. As you can tell from the title this is a crime drama about a brother who was imprisoned for murdering the Governors brother. Naturally he was set up and his younger brother decides to break the law, go into prison, and break him out. This is an insane premise that really works. Prison Break has a cast of very different characters with different backgrounds and the prison life is well represented in the very first season.Michael Scofield is a mastermind behind the entire show. His character is the driving force throughout the whole show. He was an engineer before he went to save his brother and it just so happens that he designed the prison they are both in and he has the blueprints and his entire escape plan tattooed onto his body. At the end of the plot episode that is what we learn and that sets the tone for an intense series with constant action, plot twists, and so on. The inmates Michael interacts with and eventually escapes with really bring a lot to the show. Michael is the brains. Linc, his brother, is the brawn. John Abruzzi is the mob boss that is represented in every prison drama, Sucre Michael's cell mate, and of course, T-Bag. I'm forgetting some characters but those are the main ones. T-Bag is the pedophile and vile human being that never goes away. He is a disgusting and slippery man who is very tricky. He does amazing things for the show but with every episode I was waiting for him to get what he deserves. In the middle of the first season and even in the second season we see a human side of him. We understand his background and how he got in prison in the first place. After we dig into his character you start to pity him and even feel sorry. That storyline ends and is never brought back. The writers ran that story as long as they could but this show had a lot of faults.The first season was one in which you are at the edge of your seats. The twists and turns and life in the prison made the show very addicting. Any idiot can predict the end of the first season is the inmates escaping and the second season is the manhunt. The second season was not as good as the first but it was a thrill ride with more twists and turns. The third season was completely ridiculous and just filler that failed. The first season was really focused on the prison and escaping while unraveling the mystery of "the company" but more on that later. The second season was the manhunt with the addition of the extremely underrated actor, William Fichtner. He is a really good actor and he delivers in this series from the second season to the very last episode. The third season brings it back to a prison and it was disappointing. The writers really ran out of ideas and it almost worked until the first episode of the fourth season when in the first ten minutes something happens which makes the entire third season irrelevant. Then the fourth season is about bringing down the company and at least the series ends strong in the fourth season. The show lost its roots and the story got very far-fetched and unbelievable. Michael had a plan for everything and was essentially a genius but he did not expect to fall in love. A big part to his escape plan was the infirmary and there he meets Dr. Sarah Tancredi. Sarah Wayne Callies does a really good job playing the former junkie doctor in the series. Michael planned to use her but he fell in love and she becomes a key character in the series. As important as she was she becomes completely AWOL in the third season. We see her in the season finale of the second season and then she disappears. She was a main character in the first two seasons and then she is gone. Writers have to write characters off but she was a main character and the third season is the chink in the armor and almost destroys this series. As I mentioned earlier, the company sets up Linc for the murder and is the evil force in the entire series. While Michael and Linc are inside in the 1st season their friend who is a lawyer digs into the company and uncovers a conspiracy that lasts throughout the show. This is where the writing reaches its peak because this is where the plot twists come in. As Michael discovers what is happening he has to think and rethink how to defeat the company. He doesn't have anything in his tattoos to take down a government power. The tattoos were another thing I loved about the show but they also disappear after the second season. They become irrelevant and it was like the death of a character. Anyway, the company is the superpower that is almost indestructible and they are in charge. Company Agents are terrible people but really smart. They are a villain in a suit and they answer to The General. The General becomes important as the show progresses and is really a breath of fresh air towards the end of the show. Overall, Prison Break is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen but it has obvious flaws I cannot ignore. The third season was a mess with poor writing and irrelevance of characters. The show started off strong, slipped, and had a strong finish. They had plans for a 5th season but it didn't happen and became a TV movie instead. Thank god, because that would have been bad. Prison Break gets the WillyT Honorable Mention.

Best TV Programme I've seen in ages

tt0455275

Prison Break is the Best TV Programme I've seen in ages. Its even one of the Best Prison related movie / drama. Micheal Scofield is the very intelligent main lead that goes to prison to escape his brother. Out of all the characters, T Bag was Nasty but entertaining. Its Prison, you get guys like that, he gave a Great performance. Abruzi is another entertaining character playing the Mob of the prison. The supporting cast has some interesting characters including Sucre, C Note and haywire. Its amazing how a simple storyline, is told in 22 episodes lasting 45 minutes each. And yet, it still ain't over. I cant wait to see Season 2, I know its long in some ways, some people would of preferred it to finish. I want them to go back in prison and this time have some more new characters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-118

ur10958226

title: Best TV Programme I've seen in ages review: Prison Break is the Best TV Programme I've seen in ages. Its even one of the Best Prison related movie / drama. Micheal Scofield is the very intelligent main lead that goes to prison to escape his brother. Out of all the characters, T Bag was Nasty but entertaining. Its Prison, you get guys like that, he gave a Great performance. Abruzi is another entertaining character playing the Mob of the prison. The supporting cast has some interesting characters including Sucre, C Note and haywire. Its amazing how a simple storyline, is told in 22 episodes lasting 45 minutes each. And yet, it still ain't over. I cant wait to see Season 2, I know its long in some ways, some people would of preferred it to finish. I want them to go back in prison and this time have some more new characters.

It should have ended with Season 2

tt0455275

If I were to rate the seasons individually, the first two seasons would have gotten a much higher rating. I really liked those, the suspense was held high, there was something at stake there. It really loses its grip (on almost everything) with the end of season 2, to make way for the third season. While watching Season 3, I realized this was more or less a rehash of the first season (though not as good). Still compared to what they went and did in Season 4 ... Season 3 seems like Shakespeare compared to it.Season 4 goes completely Telenovela on the viewer and while it could have been even more ridiculous, it was enough to almost make me rate the whole thing a 6 instead of a 7. But back to the good things. Season 1 and 2, with great characters and while still some peculiar coincidences, it was really suspenseful and did hold its own. You had some surprises but you also had some things to look forward too. The misdirections worked (the ones you spot and the ones you missed) and the acting was more than decent enough.Talking about acting, one particular character (a bad/psychotic one) seems to be a favorite. Especially with the ladies and it's not purely for his looks (no offense). Which made me wonder, especially considering the crimes that character committed, why some people were rooting for him. But that's just me I guess, the actor playing him, does a great job and later in the show there is a female "counterpart" (sort of).The show also got nominated for its score (and might have won a few awards) and rightfully so. The theme is really good and sets the tone. Even the advertising break interlude has a nice touch (of course watching it on Disc, you can avoid those). Everyone was making a big deal that this was a network show and not cable. So there is some violence and a bit of cursing, but not as much (and no nudity) as in other shows. But that was never a problem (at least not for my viewing pleasure).If you can stop at/after Season 2, you might do yourself a big favor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455275/reviews-431

ur5876717

title: It should have ended with Season 2 review: If I were to rate the seasons individually, the first two seasons would have gotten a much higher rating. I really liked those, the suspense was held high, there was something at stake there. It really loses its grip (on almost everything) with the end of season 2, to make way for the third season. While watching Season 3, I realized this was more or less a rehash of the first season (though not as good). Still compared to what they went and did in Season 4 ... Season 3 seems like Shakespeare compared to it.Season 4 goes completely Telenovela on the viewer and while it could have been even more ridiculous, it was enough to almost make me rate the whole thing a 6 instead of a 7. But back to the good things. Season 1 and 2, with great characters and while still some peculiar coincidences, it was really suspenseful and did hold its own. You had some surprises but you also had some things to look forward too. The misdirections worked (the ones you spot and the ones you missed) and the acting was more than decent enough.Talking about acting, one particular character (a bad/psychotic one) seems to be a favorite. Especially with the ladies and it's not purely for his looks (no offense). Which made me wonder, especially considering the crimes that character committed, why some people were rooting for him. But that's just me I guess, the actor playing him, does a great job and later in the show there is a female "counterpart" (sort of).The show also got nominated for its score (and might have won a few awards) and rightfully so. The theme is really good and sets the tone. Even the advertising break interlude has a nice touch (of course watching it on Disc, you can avoid those). Everyone was making a big deal that this was a network show and not cable. So there is some violence and a bit of cursing, but not as much (and no nudity) as in other shows. But that was never a problem (at least not for my viewing pleasure).If you can stop at/after Season 2, you might do yourself a big favor.

A Decent Attempt at Fantasy Drama

tt1837709

It might be better to describe this movie as a fantasy drama rather than a romance drama. There are strong implications of fantasy in this movie that border on the occult or horror genre. Russell Crowe has a rather particularly nasty, violence role. There is romance, there is good vs. evil and there is an element of time and generations. Yet for all the effort, there seems to be a lack of a compelling relational connection throughout the entire breadth of the movie. The movie begins with a seemingly fairy tale voice over and yet descends into a more much darker movie. Unlike Constantine (2005), the evil isn't as interestingly attractively diverting. The Hans Zimmer's soundtrack isn't really that pronounced or an interesting park of the movie, missing the best sound as used for the ending credits. While the directorial attention on period romance offers up some qualitative, cerebral interest, the rapture of entertainment value of say Time After Time (1979) or Kate and Leopold (2001) is lost. A much more interesting sci fi drama for comparison take might be The Signal (2014), Cloud Atlas (2012), or Interstellar (2014). Perhaps the most magical part of this movie is how beautifully young Jennifer Connelly continues to be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-110

ur0972645

title: A Decent Attempt at Fantasy Drama review: It might be better to describe this movie as a fantasy drama rather than a romance drama. There are strong implications of fantasy in this movie that border on the occult or horror genre. Russell Crowe has a rather particularly nasty, violence role. There is romance, there is good vs. evil and there is an element of time and generations. Yet for all the effort, there seems to be a lack of a compelling relational connection throughout the entire breadth of the movie. The movie begins with a seemingly fairy tale voice over and yet descends into a more much darker movie. Unlike Constantine (2005), the evil isn't as interestingly attractively diverting. The Hans Zimmer's soundtrack isn't really that pronounced or an interesting park of the movie, missing the best sound as used for the ending credits. While the directorial attention on period romance offers up some qualitative, cerebral interest, the rapture of entertainment value of say Time After Time (1979) or Kate and Leopold (2001) is lost. A much more interesting sci fi drama for comparison take might be The Signal (2014), Cloud Atlas (2012), or Interstellar (2014). Perhaps the most magical part of this movie is how beautifully young Jennifer Connelly continues to be.

Maybe a bit more polishing...

tt1837709

I feel like I have just seen a film that could have been truly amazing. It has one of the best romantic couples of the last decade. There were times when I felt I was aboard "Titanic" while watching the two leads fall in love at first sight. Here's one scene where we went beyond some of the truly flabbergasting choices Hollywood sometimes makes. Farrell is truly convincing as the man who can't get what he wants and needs. He finds the girl of his dreams, only to...Gorgeously photographed, lovingly scored, and almost perfectly cast... Akiva Goldsman has come up with a loving tribute to the power of love, fate, and some other cosmic forces. There are various expressions of love, as one sees man meet his soul mate, parents opt for desperate choices, sisters strengthen a bond, and some unknown forces send us beautiful creatures to help become permanent additions to the tapestry of the heavens.We follow our hero as he gives a woman the opportunity to enjoy bliss of all kinds in her short stay in this world, with the help of a wonderful Pegasus lookalike, he manages to avoid the forces of evil who attempt to destroy him (a bit of a problem here) because it lessens the beauty of the other plot twists. Maybe it is because this is a film where love is so powerful and beautifully depicted that the villain seems superfluous, and it doesn't help that Crowe goes a bit too far playing whoever he might be. We want him off the screen and yearn to see the other incarnations of pure love and devotion. Connelly is as lovely as ever, Eva Marie Saint is pure warmth, the children are pure innocence, and the two romantic leads just make us wish their love lasted even more.It all begins at the end of the 19th Century, and it reaches its climax in the 21st Century. Is it a time travel fantasy? It's never fully explained, but it wants us to believe that love and goodness are eternal and worth fighting for. Are we recycling ourselves or just part of a chain that allows us chances to reach our dreams and perfection? It doesn't seem to matter and it's never fully explained. Maybe it's on the pages of the novel this is based on, but it's been almost 30+ years since I felt the kind of romantic magic that Reeves and Seymour put on the screen in "Somewhere in Time" (another dramatic romance with time travel overtones).The magic is in the leads and the look of the film. Something is either missing or just a bit overshadowed by the magic of the look, sound, and acting in the movie. Maybe there is a much longer version which feels more cohesive and more logical. Maybe it is meant to be felt. There is powerful images in the depiction of the late 19th century. Hollywood films are getting so much better at showing us what people looked like back then. I was afraid the magic would disappear in the contemporary scenes, but here is where the acting becomes more powerful as Farrell discovers what his true purpose in life is, and there is that scene in the frozen lake. I thought "Frozen" was incredible animation, but there is nothing to improve on capturing the beauty of a chilly winter night. The silver and blues will envelope your soul like few images ever have in cinema.Go and swoon with the leads, and I'm hoping there is more to this feature. Maybe, like "Once Upon a Time in America" we'll discover what this diamond looks like once the work is all finished. This film demands that Mr. Akiva invest a bit more time trying to give us what he might have originally intended.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-8

ur2115026

title: Maybe a bit more polishing... review: I feel like I have just seen a film that could have been truly amazing. It has one of the best romantic couples of the last decade. There were times when I felt I was aboard "Titanic" while watching the two leads fall in love at first sight. Here's one scene where we went beyond some of the truly flabbergasting choices Hollywood sometimes makes. Farrell is truly convincing as the man who can't get what he wants and needs. He finds the girl of his dreams, only to...Gorgeously photographed, lovingly scored, and almost perfectly cast... Akiva Goldsman has come up with a loving tribute to the power of love, fate, and some other cosmic forces. There are various expressions of love, as one sees man meet his soul mate, parents opt for desperate choices, sisters strengthen a bond, and some unknown forces send us beautiful creatures to help become permanent additions to the tapestry of the heavens.We follow our hero as he gives a woman the opportunity to enjoy bliss of all kinds in her short stay in this world, with the help of a wonderful Pegasus lookalike, he manages to avoid the forces of evil who attempt to destroy him (a bit of a problem here) because it lessens the beauty of the other plot twists. Maybe it is because this is a film where love is so powerful and beautifully depicted that the villain seems superfluous, and it doesn't help that Crowe goes a bit too far playing whoever he might be. We want him off the screen and yearn to see the other incarnations of pure love and devotion. Connelly is as lovely as ever, Eva Marie Saint is pure warmth, the children are pure innocence, and the two romantic leads just make us wish their love lasted even more.It all begins at the end of the 19th Century, and it reaches its climax in the 21st Century. Is it a time travel fantasy? It's never fully explained, but it wants us to believe that love and goodness are eternal and worth fighting for. Are we recycling ourselves or just part of a chain that allows us chances to reach our dreams and perfection? It doesn't seem to matter and it's never fully explained. Maybe it's on the pages of the novel this is based on, but it's been almost 30+ years since I felt the kind of romantic magic that Reeves and Seymour put on the screen in "Somewhere in Time" (another dramatic romance with time travel overtones).The magic is in the leads and the look of the film. Something is either missing or just a bit overshadowed by the magic of the look, sound, and acting in the movie. Maybe there is a much longer version which feels more cohesive and more logical. Maybe it is meant to be felt. There is powerful images in the depiction of the late 19th century. Hollywood films are getting so much better at showing us what people looked like back then. I was afraid the magic would disappear in the contemporary scenes, but here is where the acting becomes more powerful as Farrell discovers what his true purpose in life is, and there is that scene in the frozen lake. I thought "Frozen" was incredible animation, but there is nothing to improve on capturing the beauty of a chilly winter night. The silver and blues will envelope your soul like few images ever have in cinema.Go and swoon with the leads, and I'm hoping there is more to this feature. Maybe, like "Once Upon a Time in America" we'll discover what this diamond looks like once the work is all finished. This film demands that Mr. Akiva invest a bit more time trying to give us what he might have originally intended.

Poor film

tt1837709

Greetings from Lithuania."Winter's Tale" is a very poor film. I watched it with an open mind, haven't read reviews but heard that it was critically smashed. I couldn't agree more, this is a truly poor film. The story is all over the map, you get this thief, a dying young women, Russel Crowe who is chasing a thief, and he is some sort of demon or whatever, then there is Will Smith who is ... and don't even want to go there, then there is 2014 year with one character still alive from 1915 and still able to work - really? "Winter's Tale" has an amazing cast, but here the actors had nothing to do with the material, they are clearly worked for a paycheck (don't blame them). Overall, unfortunately "Winter's Tale" is a train wreck of a movie, a real mess. You can safely skip it, because after 10 min. you will forget what have you been watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-81

ur4405474

title: Poor film review: Greetings from Lithuania."Winter's Tale" is a very poor film. I watched it with an open mind, haven't read reviews but heard that it was critically smashed. I couldn't agree more, this is a truly poor film. The story is all over the map, you get this thief, a dying young women, Russel Crowe who is chasing a thief, and he is some sort of demon or whatever, then there is Will Smith who is ... and don't even want to go there, then there is 2014 year with one character still alive from 1915 and still able to work - really? "Winter's Tale" has an amazing cast, but here the actors had nothing to do with the material, they are clearly worked for a paycheck (don't blame them). Overall, unfortunately "Winter's Tale" is a train wreck of a movie, a real mess. You can safely skip it, because after 10 min. you will forget what have you been watching.

A senseless romantic fairytale

tt1837709

"Don't know who's more foolish; The horse who won't listen to his master or the master who listens to his horse."I don't know what was more foolish; the fact that I watched this film knowing it was going to be terrible, or the fact that I'm actually spending time on reviewing it. Considering that the tagline of the film claims "This is not a true story. This is true love," one might expect at least for the romantic elements to be emotionally gripping, but the chemistry between the lead actors isn't even there. This is basically your average chick flick mixed with some classical fairytale elements, and unfortunately neither of them worked. Winter's Tale requires you to stretch your imagination way too far and it just didn't work for me. This is yet another example of a film based on a beloved novel that doesn't quite translate well on the big screen. Since I never had read the book I kind of felt lost trying to understand who the characters were; the story simply didn't translate well on film. This is Akiva Goldsman's first feature film as a director and he disappoints. I've enjoyed some of his screenplays in the past (I Am Legend, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man), but Winter's Tale is simply poorly directed. Fans of schmaltzy and romantic fairy tales might enjoy this, but it definitely doesn't bring anything original or fresh to the genre. Adapted from Mark Helprin's novel of the same name, Akiva Goldsman's film takes place in freezing New York City during the early 1900's. The premise is very strange and they never take time to explain the sort of mystical world in which the film is set. We are first introduced to Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) as he is trying to escape from the evil Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), who wants him dead. Apparently Pearly had raised Peter and taught him how to become a great thief, but now Peter wants out. He barely survives from Pearly and his men thanks to a mystical white horse that helps him escape by performing a miraculous jump. Before leaving the city, Peter decides to burglarize a couple homes and in one of those homes he is discovered by the oldest daughter, Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay from Downtown Abby). When he sees her, he instantly falls in love with her. She tells him she suffers from a severe illness and that she only has a few months left. Peter believes he is destined to use his one miracle to save her, but Pearly will do everything in his power to stop Peter from achieving his miracle and thus restoring hope in humanity. Beverly's father, Isaac (William Hurt), approves of his daughter's relationship, but time isn't on their side.Winter's Tale also counts with the talented Jennifer Connelly and Will Smith, but there isn't much they can do with their characters. The chemistry between Farrell and Brown Findlay is practically nonexistent. Russell Crowe plays a decent villain, although it's hard to understand what he is saying. Well, actually it's hard to make sense of the actual story as well. The blending of the fantastic elements with the romance doesn't work at all and the film tries to be ambitious but it doesn't deliver anything unique. The score by Hans Zimmer is beautiful, but the way they use it in this film is way too manipulative. Since neither the characters nor the story manage to engage the audience, they try to do so by using the emotional score. It's a film you might enjoy more by simply closing your eyes and listening to the score rather than watching the action unfold. It's a shame because a talented ensemble cast is wasted once again for a film that has nothing to offer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-57

ur13566917

title: A senseless romantic fairytale review: "Don't know who's more foolish; The horse who won't listen to his master or the master who listens to his horse."I don't know what was more foolish; the fact that I watched this film knowing it was going to be terrible, or the fact that I'm actually spending time on reviewing it. Considering that the tagline of the film claims "This is not a true story. This is true love," one might expect at least for the romantic elements to be emotionally gripping, but the chemistry between the lead actors isn't even there. This is basically your average chick flick mixed with some classical fairytale elements, and unfortunately neither of them worked. Winter's Tale requires you to stretch your imagination way too far and it just didn't work for me. This is yet another example of a film based on a beloved novel that doesn't quite translate well on the big screen. Since I never had read the book I kind of felt lost trying to understand who the characters were; the story simply didn't translate well on film. This is Akiva Goldsman's first feature film as a director and he disappoints. I've enjoyed some of his screenplays in the past (I Am Legend, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man), but Winter's Tale is simply poorly directed. Fans of schmaltzy and romantic fairy tales might enjoy this, but it definitely doesn't bring anything original or fresh to the genre. Adapted from Mark Helprin's novel of the same name, Akiva Goldsman's film takes place in freezing New York City during the early 1900's. The premise is very strange and they never take time to explain the sort of mystical world in which the film is set. We are first introduced to Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) as he is trying to escape from the evil Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), who wants him dead. Apparently Pearly had raised Peter and taught him how to become a great thief, but now Peter wants out. He barely survives from Pearly and his men thanks to a mystical white horse that helps him escape by performing a miraculous jump. Before leaving the city, Peter decides to burglarize a couple homes and in one of those homes he is discovered by the oldest daughter, Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay from Downtown Abby). When he sees her, he instantly falls in love with her. She tells him she suffers from a severe illness and that she only has a few months left. Peter believes he is destined to use his one miracle to save her, but Pearly will do everything in his power to stop Peter from achieving his miracle and thus restoring hope in humanity. Beverly's father, Isaac (William Hurt), approves of his daughter's relationship, but time isn't on their side.Winter's Tale also counts with the talented Jennifer Connelly and Will Smith, but there isn't much they can do with their characters. The chemistry between Farrell and Brown Findlay is practically nonexistent. Russell Crowe plays a decent villain, although it's hard to understand what he is saying. Well, actually it's hard to make sense of the actual story as well. The blending of the fantastic elements with the romance doesn't work at all and the film tries to be ambitious but it doesn't deliver anything unique. The score by Hans Zimmer is beautiful, but the way they use it in this film is way too manipulative. Since neither the characters nor the story manage to engage the audience, they try to do so by using the emotional score. It's a film you might enjoy more by simply closing your eyes and listening to the score rather than watching the action unfold. It's a shame because a talented ensemble cast is wasted once again for a film that has nothing to offer.

Definitely an acquired taste

tt1837709

Implausibility is the hallmark of Akiva Goldsman's "Winter's Tale," a sappy romance whose handsome production values and fantastical elements can't quite conceal its dime-novel origins. Set at the turn- of-the-century (the 20th Century, that is), this adaptation of the Mark Helprin novel employs generous dollops of magic realism in a vain attempt to cover a multitude of narrative sins.Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is a dreamy-eyed thief-with-a-heart-of-gold who makes a home for himself in the attic of Grand Central Station, rides around the city on a kind of magic horse, and, on one of his periodic burglaries, meets Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay), a poor little rich girl, who, like all good heroines of a certain era, is rapidly succumbing to consumption. Repeating to some extent his Javert bit in "Les Miserables" (minus, thank heavens, the singing), Russell Crowe plays Pearly Soames, a sadistic Fagin-esque figure who raised the orphaned Peter up to become a thief but who now thinks his young ex- protégé has just turned into a great big softie (the fellow has somehow gotten the notion that he can steal from people without actually harming them physically) and is determined to make Lake pay for his disloyalty. Soames is so villainous, in fact, that he stops just short of twirling his mustache whenever he's about to perform one of his trademarked dastardly deeds. Turns out there's more to it, though, as we learn that Peter is the first human who's on the brink of "using his miracle," (i.e., saving Beverly) which would result in...well, we're never really quite sure what it would result in, but we're assured it would be pretty awesome. And, oh yes, did I mention that at some point a laughable Will Smith joins the proceedings, portraying no less a figure than that old boy Lucifer, who it turns out is Soames' boss, Soames himself being a demon from hell? And things just get weirder from there. In fact, I half expected the horse to let out with a "Wi..i..i..i..lber" at some point, but he never did.Fast forward to the present day to find an amnesia-stricken Peter unaccountably defying the ravages of time to wander the streets of New York searching for that elusive something he knows he lost a full century ago. Yet, amidst all the soul-searching and miracle-working and New Age-philosophizing, the only thing we really want to know is why the man couldn't come up with a more stylish and flattering hairstyle after a hundred additional years on Earth.Ah well, if this sort of thing happens to be your cup of tea, at least know that you'll be rewarded with some mighty impressive visuals as well as a total saturation in period atmosphere. You'll also get to see such acting stalwarts as William Hurt, Jennifer Connelly, Graham Greene and Eva Marie Saint in supporting roles. But beyond that, I can't offer much in the way of encouragement or solace for those who insist on giving "Winter's Tale" a try. Just know that this is a movie designed with a very specific audience in mind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-96

ur0375636

title: Definitely an acquired taste review: Implausibility is the hallmark of Akiva Goldsman's "Winter's Tale," a sappy romance whose handsome production values and fantastical elements can't quite conceal its dime-novel origins. Set at the turn- of-the-century (the 20th Century, that is), this adaptation of the Mark Helprin novel employs generous dollops of magic realism in a vain attempt to cover a multitude of narrative sins.Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is a dreamy-eyed thief-with-a-heart-of-gold who makes a home for himself in the attic of Grand Central Station, rides around the city on a kind of magic horse, and, on one of his periodic burglaries, meets Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay), a poor little rich girl, who, like all good heroines of a certain era, is rapidly succumbing to consumption. Repeating to some extent his Javert bit in "Les Miserables" (minus, thank heavens, the singing), Russell Crowe plays Pearly Soames, a sadistic Fagin-esque figure who raised the orphaned Peter up to become a thief but who now thinks his young ex- protégé has just turned into a great big softie (the fellow has somehow gotten the notion that he can steal from people without actually harming them physically) and is determined to make Lake pay for his disloyalty. Soames is so villainous, in fact, that he stops just short of twirling his mustache whenever he's about to perform one of his trademarked dastardly deeds. Turns out there's more to it, though, as we learn that Peter is the first human who's on the brink of "using his miracle," (i.e., saving Beverly) which would result in...well, we're never really quite sure what it would result in, but we're assured it would be pretty awesome. And, oh yes, did I mention that at some point a laughable Will Smith joins the proceedings, portraying no less a figure than that old boy Lucifer, who it turns out is Soames' boss, Soames himself being a demon from hell? And things just get weirder from there. In fact, I half expected the horse to let out with a "Wi..i..i..i..lber" at some point, but he never did.Fast forward to the present day to find an amnesia-stricken Peter unaccountably defying the ravages of time to wander the streets of New York searching for that elusive something he knows he lost a full century ago. Yet, amidst all the soul-searching and miracle-working and New Age-philosophizing, the only thing we really want to know is why the man couldn't come up with a more stylish and flattering hairstyle after a hundred additional years on Earth.Ah well, if this sort of thing happens to be your cup of tea, at least know that you'll be rewarded with some mighty impressive visuals as well as a total saturation in period atmosphere. You'll also get to see such acting stalwarts as William Hurt, Jennifer Connelly, Graham Greene and Eva Marie Saint in supporting roles. But beyond that, I can't offer much in the way of encouragement or solace for those who insist on giving "Winter's Tale" a try. Just know that this is a movie designed with a very specific audience in mind.

Too incoherent to be taken seriously, too boring to be funny

tt1837709

I really was not expecting to hate this movie as much as I did. I really had no interest in seeing this at first, I had no idea what it was about and it may have just faded away. However I soon started hearing that this is one of those insane movies, the movie you had to see just to understand how insane it actually is. Something like "Branded" or "The Oogieloves" and yet the movie turned out to be so boring that I can't even tell you what it is about.Some stuff happens in the past, they go to the future, some little girl is dying, Will Smith is a demon (WTF) and a bunch of incoherent stuff happens that we get a happy ending. I guess. This movie was just a bore, I didn't care about any character, the action wasn't enthralling, the dialog was slow, pretentious, and dull, and despite having Will Smith playing a demon, nothing funny was happening. The film is a bunch of random stuff happening, trying to convey the message that everything happens for a reason, again, I guess. I kind of hated this movie, it does look pretty nice, and the acting isn't really that bad, but nothing about this movie made me glad I saw it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-49

ur20621243

title: Too incoherent to be taken seriously, too boring to be funny review: I really was not expecting to hate this movie as much as I did. I really had no interest in seeing this at first, I had no idea what it was about and it may have just faded away. However I soon started hearing that this is one of those insane movies, the movie you had to see just to understand how insane it actually is. Something like "Branded" or "The Oogieloves" and yet the movie turned out to be so boring that I can't even tell you what it is about.Some stuff happens in the past, they go to the future, some little girl is dying, Will Smith is a demon (WTF) and a bunch of incoherent stuff happens that we get a happy ending. I guess. This movie was just a bore, I didn't care about any character, the action wasn't enthralling, the dialog was slow, pretentious, and dull, and despite having Will Smith playing a demon, nothing funny was happening. The film is a bunch of random stuff happening, trying to convey the message that everything happens for a reason, again, I guess. I kind of hated this movie, it does look pretty nice, and the acting isn't really that bad, but nothing about this movie made me glad I saw it.

Don't Chase this Tale

tt1837709

Will Smith has had his hits – more than his misses. Sadly for him, this complete and terrible misstep for him will rank as one of his worst.Winter's Tale was literally all over the place. It never settled in on one subject or one of the multiple story lines. It attempted to create a new universe and failed at every aspect. Even with an all- star cast.Very basically, the movie follows both thief Peter (Colin Farrell) through decades of wandering until he can save someone red-headed and his jealous demon mentor, Pearly (Russell Crowe) who only stole his role from the equally terrible Les Misérables movie.The movie seemed to show some spark of heart, but was so blended in so many random directions, it could never focus long enough for us to be invested. This may be adapted from an astounding novel, but it only gave us the cliff notes version of the real cliff notes. If they said – and they did – this book was unfilmable, they should've listened. This should've been a 13-episode miniseries instead. Then they would've had more time to explore the 82 subplots and additional characters that did not appear in the book. Like…Will Smith.Seriously, I laughed out loud at his character and costume. He was unintentionally bad. Terrible. A Riot. And the CGI placed into his mouth was actually worth watching the entire movie for. It was pre- Jurassic Park bad and that might be a selling point for new viewers to watch and laugh at.I see where they were going with this. Skip it. There is absolutely nothing here to see.* * *Final thoughts: I only watched this because of the fantastic How Did This Get Made? podcast. That episode was awesome and more highly recommended than this piece of crud. Here were a few notes I took during this movie:> Why didn't Ray Liotta play the Crowe character? He definitely fit more perfectly, though I see why Crowe would want to reprise his Les Misérables role.> What was with the score? It was really good and so misplaced here. > NYC 1915: Population 20. > 12th Street. Chicken. 12th Street. Chicken. Must remember this! > Why not ride on the horse to safety? Why did he forget everything? Who the hell cares?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-95

ur17825945

title: Don't Chase this Tale review: Will Smith has had his hits – more than his misses. Sadly for him, this complete and terrible misstep for him will rank as one of his worst.Winter's Tale was literally all over the place. It never settled in on one subject or one of the multiple story lines. It attempted to create a new universe and failed at every aspect. Even with an all- star cast.Very basically, the movie follows both thief Peter (Colin Farrell) through decades of wandering until he can save someone red-headed and his jealous demon mentor, Pearly (Russell Crowe) who only stole his role from the equally terrible Les Misérables movie.The movie seemed to show some spark of heart, but was so blended in so many random directions, it could never focus long enough for us to be invested. This may be adapted from an astounding novel, but it only gave us the cliff notes version of the real cliff notes. If they said – and they did – this book was unfilmable, they should've listened. This should've been a 13-episode miniseries instead. Then they would've had more time to explore the 82 subplots and additional characters that did not appear in the book. Like…Will Smith.Seriously, I laughed out loud at his character and costume. He was unintentionally bad. Terrible. A Riot. And the CGI placed into his mouth was actually worth watching the entire movie for. It was pre- Jurassic Park bad and that might be a selling point for new viewers to watch and laugh at.I see where they were going with this. Skip it. There is absolutely nothing here to see.* * *Final thoughts: I only watched this because of the fantastic How Did This Get Made? podcast. That episode was awesome and more highly recommended than this piece of crud. Here were a few notes I took during this movie:> Why didn't Ray Liotta play the Crowe character? He definitely fit more perfectly, though I see why Crowe would want to reprise his Les Misérables role.> What was with the score? It was really good and so misplaced here. > NYC 1915: Population 20. > 12th Street. Chicken. 12th Street. Chicken. Must remember this! > Why not ride on the horse to safety? Why did he forget everything? Who the hell cares?

Romantic Fantasy

tt1837709

My wife and I watched "Winter's Tale" as our pre-Valentine movie date this year. I initially thought it would be an interpretation of Shakespeare's last known play. However as the film unfolded, it was clear that this was not the case. The story starts in 1895, and goes all the way up to the present time, all set in New York City. However, the main love story happens in 1916. Peter Lake is a thief who running from his former mentor in crime, Pearly Soames. Beverly Penn is a rich young heiress with flaming red hair, dying of consumption. With Pearly in hot pursuit, Peter and Beverly meet and fall in love, till one's death did them part. The story does not end there, and instead fast forwards to 2014. An amnesic man aimlessly draws a figure of a lady with long red hair everyday on the sidewalk of a park with chalk. One day, he meets Abby, a little girl who was dying of cancer. With the help of Abby's mother, he discovers who he really is, and how he can fulfill his life's miracle. But he has to contend with the forces of evil which intend to confound his plans.Colin Farrell plays Peter with his well-known and well-liked Irish rogue charm. The beautiful Jessica Brown Findlay plays Beverly with so much verve and magic. We were feeling some kind of a "Titanic"-like doomed lovers vibe as we watched the two together, which made Colin look a little too old for his role. In any case, he still managed to pull it off creditably well somehow, despite noting that his hairstyle kept on changing its look as the camera shifts within the same scene. As the devilish Pearly, Russell Crowe again shows off his acting mettle, this time as the main ruthless antagonist. His violent anger would sometimes get some Interesting yet subtle CG help to make it more demonic. He would also have a couple of well-written scenes with a surprise appearance by Will Smith, who makes an uncredited cameo as Judge Lucifer himself. Like Crowe and Smith, other Oscar-pedigreed actors make notable supporting turns. William Hurt plays Beverly's protective father Isaac Penn. Graham Greene plays Peter's sage adviser on the streets. Jennifer Connely plays Virginia, Abby's distraught mother. And the ever- glamorous Ms. Eva Marie Saint plays a centenarian who knew of Peter and Beverly's love affair. Even with her short scenes, Ms. Saint gives a most memorable, touching and dignified performance. The performances by two child actresses, Mckayla Twiggs (as Beverly's spunky sister Willa) and Ripley Sobo (as the cancer-stricken Abby), were also remarkably good.Since we went in without knowing anything about the story, we were very surprised about the fantasy aspect of this film. When we saw that white horse for the first time, we thought it was odd. But when we witnessed the fantastic things it could do, it was amazing. The CG rendering of these special effects with the horse were mesmerizing, very well-done.The way the story was told back and forth in time can get a little confusing at first. The plot is a little too convoluted for a regular love story. But of course, this is far from a regular love story. Akiva Goldsman (who won an Oscar for writing "A Beautiful Mind") adapts a novel by Mark Helprin. This is also his directorial debut for a feature film. I have not read the book so I cannot comment on how faithful he was in his adaptation. He did well though to tell a complicated tale that spans more than a century and with supernatural elements, in such a confident yet charming manner, without making everything look absurd. Most audiences would be fascinated and enchanted by its bittersweet magic. 8/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-4

ur4294858

title: Romantic Fantasy review: My wife and I watched "Winter's Tale" as our pre-Valentine movie date this year. I initially thought it would be an interpretation of Shakespeare's last known play. However as the film unfolded, it was clear that this was not the case. The story starts in 1895, and goes all the way up to the present time, all set in New York City. However, the main love story happens in 1916. Peter Lake is a thief who running from his former mentor in crime, Pearly Soames. Beverly Penn is a rich young heiress with flaming red hair, dying of consumption. With Pearly in hot pursuit, Peter and Beverly meet and fall in love, till one's death did them part. The story does not end there, and instead fast forwards to 2014. An amnesic man aimlessly draws a figure of a lady with long red hair everyday on the sidewalk of a park with chalk. One day, he meets Abby, a little girl who was dying of cancer. With the help of Abby's mother, he discovers who he really is, and how he can fulfill his life's miracle. But he has to contend with the forces of evil which intend to confound his plans.Colin Farrell plays Peter with his well-known and well-liked Irish rogue charm. The beautiful Jessica Brown Findlay plays Beverly with so much verve and magic. We were feeling some kind of a "Titanic"-like doomed lovers vibe as we watched the two together, which made Colin look a little too old for his role. In any case, he still managed to pull it off creditably well somehow, despite noting that his hairstyle kept on changing its look as the camera shifts within the same scene. As the devilish Pearly, Russell Crowe again shows off his acting mettle, this time as the main ruthless antagonist. His violent anger would sometimes get some Interesting yet subtle CG help to make it more demonic. He would also have a couple of well-written scenes with a surprise appearance by Will Smith, who makes an uncredited cameo as Judge Lucifer himself. Like Crowe and Smith, other Oscar-pedigreed actors make notable supporting turns. William Hurt plays Beverly's protective father Isaac Penn. Graham Greene plays Peter's sage adviser on the streets. Jennifer Connely plays Virginia, Abby's distraught mother. And the ever- glamorous Ms. Eva Marie Saint plays a centenarian who knew of Peter and Beverly's love affair. Even with her short scenes, Ms. Saint gives a most memorable, touching and dignified performance. The performances by two child actresses, Mckayla Twiggs (as Beverly's spunky sister Willa) and Ripley Sobo (as the cancer-stricken Abby), were also remarkably good.Since we went in without knowing anything about the story, we were very surprised about the fantasy aspect of this film. When we saw that white horse for the first time, we thought it was odd. But when we witnessed the fantastic things it could do, it was amazing. The CG rendering of these special effects with the horse were mesmerizing, very well-done.The way the story was told back and forth in time can get a little confusing at first. The plot is a little too convoluted for a regular love story. But of course, this is far from a regular love story. Akiva Goldsman (who won an Oscar for writing "A Beautiful Mind") adapts a novel by Mark Helprin. This is also his directorial debut for a feature film. I have not read the book so I cannot comment on how faithful he was in his adaptation. He did well though to tell a complicated tale that spans more than a century and with supernatural elements, in such a confident yet charming manner, without making everything look absurd. Most audiences would be fascinated and enchanted by its bittersweet magic. 8/10.

A Wonderful Love Story

tt1837709

Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is a mechanic and thief. On a Winter's Night, he enters a mansion to steal some things and meets Beverly (Jessica Brown Findlay) who is all alone in the mansion. Beverly tells Peter she is dying, but they fall in love anyway. Peter was told that everyone has one miracle within him. Will he use his miracle to save Beverly?I knew this was touted as a love story and didn't understand the casting of Colin Farrell as I don't think of him as a romantic lead. I was wrong, sort of. He was great, but to be fair it was the understated dialogues that tugged at the heart strings when he and Beverly spoke. Their banter was pure gold as was the banter later on between Peter and Beverly's father Isaac Penn (William Hurt). Sometimes you don't want these sessions to end.Yes, a love story, but a supernatural one. There is some magic in here and we see good and evil bandied about with Peter and Beverly, of course, but also we see Lucifer (Will Smith) and Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe) a demon who needs to kill Peter to tip the scales in favor of the dark side. But, even Pearly believes that it's a never ending battle because the humans have one thing he cannot destroy: Hope. Oh, and we do see a magical White Horse who helps Peter often. We kept waiting for the horse to talk, but the magic didn't extend to that point. Bummer. There is a VERY big twist and, of course it's not explained, of course. Hey, it's a supernatural love story so maybe things don't always have to be explained. Just go with it. You may find yourself hoping this never ends. I did. As you are going along with it make sure you have a box of Kleenex handy. You'll need it at times. And, I cannot say enough about the understated dialogues throughout with the entire cast. They hold you. The whole cast was simply great. The photos at the end of the movie with Peter and Beverly reminded me of that very last scene in POMPEII that I believe is the best last scene I have ever seen. Kudos.I really didn't think this would be as good as it is, but I was wrong. It is very, very good. (9/10)Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Some soft stuff only and not much of it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-83

ur15857362

title: A Wonderful Love Story review: Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is a mechanic and thief. On a Winter's Night, he enters a mansion to steal some things and meets Beverly (Jessica Brown Findlay) who is all alone in the mansion. Beverly tells Peter she is dying, but they fall in love anyway. Peter was told that everyone has one miracle within him. Will he use his miracle to save Beverly?I knew this was touted as a love story and didn't understand the casting of Colin Farrell as I don't think of him as a romantic lead. I was wrong, sort of. He was great, but to be fair it was the understated dialogues that tugged at the heart strings when he and Beverly spoke. Their banter was pure gold as was the banter later on between Peter and Beverly's father Isaac Penn (William Hurt). Sometimes you don't want these sessions to end.Yes, a love story, but a supernatural one. There is some magic in here and we see good and evil bandied about with Peter and Beverly, of course, but also we see Lucifer (Will Smith) and Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe) a demon who needs to kill Peter to tip the scales in favor of the dark side. But, even Pearly believes that it's a never ending battle because the humans have one thing he cannot destroy: Hope. Oh, and we do see a magical White Horse who helps Peter often. We kept waiting for the horse to talk, but the magic didn't extend to that point. Bummer. There is a VERY big twist and, of course it's not explained, of course. Hey, it's a supernatural love story so maybe things don't always have to be explained. Just go with it. You may find yourself hoping this never ends. I did. As you are going along with it make sure you have a box of Kleenex handy. You'll need it at times. And, I cannot say enough about the understated dialogues throughout with the entire cast. They hold you. The whole cast was simply great. The photos at the end of the movie with Peter and Beverly reminded me of that very last scene in POMPEII that I believe is the best last scene I have ever seen. Kudos.I really didn't think this would be as good as it is, but I was wrong. It is very, very good. (9/10)Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Some soft stuff only and not much of it.

A Good Romantic Tale!

tt1837709

I can always appreciate a good, well-made love story even of a story had fantastical elements as in this story's case. Winter's Tale is not a bad movie as everyone is making it seem. Sure there are some story inconsistencies and some questionable acting, but I enjoyed the film. It means well and it has a big heart. I found the romance to be quite believable and I actually enjoyed being in this world full of angels and demons and how this miraculous romance played a huge role in it. Akiva Goldsman's film is about an Irish burglar named Peter who is mysteriously led to a house of a dying girl named Beverly. Peter instantly falls in love with her and an unlikely romance begins. However, his former boss Pearly Soames is on the hunt for him as he wants Peter dead. I thought most of the acting was good. Colin Farrell, other than that hideous haircut, did a really good job in carrying the movie. The little-known Jessica Brown Findlay did a good job as his lover, Beverly. I am normally a big fan of Russell Crowe, but I could not buy his demonic performance. It was way too over-the-top. In his small role, Will Smith was suitable as the Judge.Overall, Winter's Tale is a sweeping romance/fantasy film that is better than people have been saying. It's nowhere near perfect, but it still has many things to enjoy. I found this unlikely romance to be believable which still surprises me and the story itself is interesting, especially with the fantasy elements added. I have never read the book, so I can't say for sure if it stays true to the source material. But as a film, it's an emotional, sweeping romantic film. I rate this film 8/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-116

ur17646017

title: A Good Romantic Tale! review: I can always appreciate a good, well-made love story even of a story had fantastical elements as in this story's case. Winter's Tale is not a bad movie as everyone is making it seem. Sure there are some story inconsistencies and some questionable acting, but I enjoyed the film. It means well and it has a big heart. I found the romance to be quite believable and I actually enjoyed being in this world full of angels and demons and how this miraculous romance played a huge role in it. Akiva Goldsman's film is about an Irish burglar named Peter who is mysteriously led to a house of a dying girl named Beverly. Peter instantly falls in love with her and an unlikely romance begins. However, his former boss Pearly Soames is on the hunt for him as he wants Peter dead. I thought most of the acting was good. Colin Farrell, other than that hideous haircut, did a really good job in carrying the movie. The little-known Jessica Brown Findlay did a good job as his lover, Beverly. I am normally a big fan of Russell Crowe, but I could not buy his demonic performance. It was way too over-the-top. In his small role, Will Smith was suitable as the Judge.Overall, Winter's Tale is a sweeping romance/fantasy film that is better than people have been saying. It's nowhere near perfect, but it still has many things to enjoy. I found this unlikely romance to be believable which still surprises me and the story itself is interesting, especially with the fantasy elements added. I have never read the book, so I can't say for sure if it stays true to the source material. But as a film, it's an emotional, sweeping romantic film. I rate this film 8/10.

The Retired Thief of Baghdad

tt1837709

A baby set adrift in New York Harbor like an immigrant Moses; a flying white horse like a reincarnated Pegasus; a dying virgin with long red tresses who lives like Rapunzel in a castle tower; winter scenes like Hallmark Christmas cards with glitter on the snow; a raging furnace like the boiler of a titanic ocean liner; a mysterious man who never ages. A fairy tale? A dream? A myth? Or just an overblown disaster designed to lose money for a production company's tax write-off? Wasting the talents of a stellar cast that includes four Oscar winners and a pair of former nominees, Akiva Goldman's "Winter's Tale" is a head-scratching "WTF is this?" kind of movie. Perhaps dreamy pre-pubescent girls may take this romantic tale to heart, or those who have suffered through countless viewings of "Somewhere in Time" may be entranced at a new take on timeless love. However, the flagrant waste of money and talent on this drivel is unconscionable; the millions would have been better spent feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.Colin Farrell's good looks manage to overcome an atrocious haircut, and his talent keeps him from embarrassing himself as the ageless lover and retired thief on the flying white horse. Perhaps inspired by "The Thief of Baghdad," Goldman, who produced, wrote, and directed this film, goes into his own flights of fantasy as the film dreamily shifts back and forth in time; only the flying carpet is missing. Among the film's few highlights is Eva Marie Sainte, who makes a brief, but effective, appearance late in the film; looking lovely and gracious, she manages to breathe some credibility into her role as the mature version of an earlier character. Despite their proved talent, William Hurt, Russell Crowe, Will Smith, Jennifer Connelly, and Graham Greene fail to register strongly, and some of them may grimace when they see their scenes in the final cut.The wasted talent extends to cinematographer Caleb Deschanel and composer Hans Zimmer. Based on a novel by Mark Helprin, "Winter's Tale" is a film of many mysteries. Why did this cast sign on? Did anyone read the script? How was the production money raised? Did anyone read the script? Possibly in the hands of a capable director (Ang Lee and his success with the seemingly unfilmable "Life of Pi" comes to mind) this material could have been an imaginative tale of undying love that soared and sent sales of Kleenex through the roof. However, Goldman's touch is leaden, and his concept of romance was ripped from 19th-century school girls' fiction. Perhaps the female lead, Jessica Brown Findlay, who shows promise in the role of a red-headed consumptive virgin, can use the experience and connections made with the star-studded cast to find a better role to suit her talents. The rest of the cast can only hope their appearance herein will quickly be forgotten and not blot their resumes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-115

ur0738625

title: The Retired Thief of Baghdad review: A baby set adrift in New York Harbor like an immigrant Moses; a flying white horse like a reincarnated Pegasus; a dying virgin with long red tresses who lives like Rapunzel in a castle tower; winter scenes like Hallmark Christmas cards with glitter on the snow; a raging furnace like the boiler of a titanic ocean liner; a mysterious man who never ages. A fairy tale? A dream? A myth? Or just an overblown disaster designed to lose money for a production company's tax write-off? Wasting the talents of a stellar cast that includes four Oscar winners and a pair of former nominees, Akiva Goldman's "Winter's Tale" is a head-scratching "WTF is this?" kind of movie. Perhaps dreamy pre-pubescent girls may take this romantic tale to heart, or those who have suffered through countless viewings of "Somewhere in Time" may be entranced at a new take on timeless love. However, the flagrant waste of money and talent on this drivel is unconscionable; the millions would have been better spent feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.Colin Farrell's good looks manage to overcome an atrocious haircut, and his talent keeps him from embarrassing himself as the ageless lover and retired thief on the flying white horse. Perhaps inspired by "The Thief of Baghdad," Goldman, who produced, wrote, and directed this film, goes into his own flights of fantasy as the film dreamily shifts back and forth in time; only the flying carpet is missing. Among the film's few highlights is Eva Marie Sainte, who makes a brief, but effective, appearance late in the film; looking lovely and gracious, she manages to breathe some credibility into her role as the mature version of an earlier character. Despite their proved talent, William Hurt, Russell Crowe, Will Smith, Jennifer Connelly, and Graham Greene fail to register strongly, and some of them may grimace when they see their scenes in the final cut.The wasted talent extends to cinematographer Caleb Deschanel and composer Hans Zimmer. Based on a novel by Mark Helprin, "Winter's Tale" is a film of many mysteries. Why did this cast sign on? Did anyone read the script? How was the production money raised? Did anyone read the script? Possibly in the hands of a capable director (Ang Lee and his success with the seemingly unfilmable "Life of Pi" comes to mind) this material could have been an imaginative tale of undying love that soared and sent sales of Kleenex through the roof. However, Goldman's touch is leaden, and his concept of romance was ripped from 19th-century school girls' fiction. Perhaps the female lead, Jessica Brown Findlay, who shows promise in the role of a red-headed consumptive virgin, can use the experience and connections made with the star-studded cast to find a better role to suit her talents. The rest of the cast can only hope their appearance herein will quickly be forgotten and not blot their resumes.

okay movie!

tt1837709

Winter's Tale is actually 3 stories. The struggle between good and evil. A battle for one's soul. Good is hope, miracles, and good works represented by Colin Farrell. Evil is the crushing of hope, certain defeat and loathing represented by Russell Crowe. Crowe was a demon or fallen angel. Crowe played an excellent part. Was Colin Farrell a fallen angel as well that regained his wings? Winter's Tale's story of what is apparent and a miracle is mixed with how people are interconnected by fate and destiny. A love story with a twist. Excellently acted by Farrell, and Russell Crowe. Not the most memorable movie, but has many surprises. I did not like Will Smith as Lucifer. There are so many other actors that would have portrayed a better Satan. Even Morgan Freeman and better Samuel Jackson would have played a better role as these two actors are so versatile. 6 out of 10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-37

ur0453228

title: okay movie! review: Winter's Tale is actually 3 stories. The struggle between good and evil. A battle for one's soul. Good is hope, miracles, and good works represented by Colin Farrell. Evil is the crushing of hope, certain defeat and loathing represented by Russell Crowe. Crowe was a demon or fallen angel. Crowe played an excellent part. Was Colin Farrell a fallen angel as well that regained his wings? Winter's Tale's story of what is apparent and a miracle is mixed with how people are interconnected by fate and destiny. A love story with a twist. Excellently acted by Farrell, and Russell Crowe. Not the most memorable movie, but has many surprises. I did not like Will Smith as Lucifer. There are so many other actors that would have portrayed a better Satan. Even Morgan Freeman and better Samuel Jackson would have played a better role as these two actors are so versatile. 6 out of 10

Forget the Arithmetic and Enjoy the Magical Romance

tt1837709

In 1895, a couple of immigrant is not allowed to entry into the United States because the man has tuberculosis (a.k.a. consumption) and they leave their baby son in a miniature of sailboat named "City of Justice" to be adopted by some family.In 1916, in New York, the baby has grown up and is the burglar Peter Lake (Colin Farrell), who was raised by the demon and gangster Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe). When Peter confronts Pearly, he orders his men to kill him but Peter is saved by a flying white horse. Peter decides to rob one last house and leave New York, but he meets the red-haired twenty-year old Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay) that is dying of consumption and they immediately fall in love with each other. They decide to flee to the North to the Lake of the Coheeries, where Pearly has no jurisdiction and is not allowed to go by Lucifer (Will Smith). Pearly believes that Peter will use his miracle and spiritual destiny that everyone is born with to save Beverly and he uses another angel to poison Beverly. Peter does not succeed to save her and when she dies, returns to New York and Pearly throw him off the Brooklyn Bridge. However Peter does not die and wanders for almost one century without memories until 2014, when he meets the little red-haired Abby (Ripley Sobo) that is dying of cancer and her mother Virginia Gamely (Jennifer Connelly). Now he believes that he can save Abby, but Pearly is hunting him down. Will Peter succeed in using his miracle this time?"Winter's Tale" is an underrated magical romance with a beautiful story of miracle and eternal love. This movie has an amazing cast, wonderful cinematography, locations, set decoration, art direction and music score, but has not been well-accepted by the professional critics. The greatest inconsistency of this movie is relative to the dates, since the story begins in 1895 and jumps to 1916 and Collin Farrell, despite his great performance, does not convince as a twenty-one year-old man (he is almost forty). Then there is another jump to 2014 and Willa, who was a young girl, is a lucid old woman certainly with less than one- hundred and something years old that she should have. Why Peter's parents prefer to leave him in an unstable model of sailboat instead of in a corner of the harbor is another senseless part of the story. Anyway, better off forget the arithmetic and enjoy this beautiful magical romance. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Um Conto do Destino" ( "A Destiny's Tale")

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-100

ur2488512

title: Forget the Arithmetic and Enjoy the Magical Romance review: In 1895, a couple of immigrant is not allowed to entry into the United States because the man has tuberculosis (a.k.a. consumption) and they leave their baby son in a miniature of sailboat named "City of Justice" to be adopted by some family.In 1916, in New York, the baby has grown up and is the burglar Peter Lake (Colin Farrell), who was raised by the demon and gangster Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe). When Peter confronts Pearly, he orders his men to kill him but Peter is saved by a flying white horse. Peter decides to rob one last house and leave New York, but he meets the red-haired twenty-year old Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay) that is dying of consumption and they immediately fall in love with each other. They decide to flee to the North to the Lake of the Coheeries, where Pearly has no jurisdiction and is not allowed to go by Lucifer (Will Smith). Pearly believes that Peter will use his miracle and spiritual destiny that everyone is born with to save Beverly and he uses another angel to poison Beverly. Peter does not succeed to save her and when she dies, returns to New York and Pearly throw him off the Brooklyn Bridge. However Peter does not die and wanders for almost one century without memories until 2014, when he meets the little red-haired Abby (Ripley Sobo) that is dying of cancer and her mother Virginia Gamely (Jennifer Connelly). Now he believes that he can save Abby, but Pearly is hunting him down. Will Peter succeed in using his miracle this time?"Winter's Tale" is an underrated magical romance with a beautiful story of miracle and eternal love. This movie has an amazing cast, wonderful cinematography, locations, set decoration, art direction and music score, but has not been well-accepted by the professional critics. The greatest inconsistency of this movie is relative to the dates, since the story begins in 1895 and jumps to 1916 and Collin Farrell, despite his great performance, does not convince as a twenty-one year-old man (he is almost forty). Then there is another jump to 2014 and Willa, who was a young girl, is a lucid old woman certainly with less than one- hundred and something years old that she should have. Why Peter's parents prefer to leave him in an unstable model of sailboat instead of in a corner of the harbor is another senseless part of the story. Anyway, better off forget the arithmetic and enjoy this beautiful magical romance. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Um Conto do Destino" ( "A Destiny's Tale")

Cynical Critics Hated It…But Worth a Watch

tt1837709

Academy Award Winner, Writer Goldsman, Turns Debut Director in this Always Fantastical Fantasy About, well, there's the Rub, a Lot of Things. It Manages to Cobble Together, Time Displacement, the Supernatural, the Cosmos, Smarmy Romanticism, Heartfelt Sincerity, Children of Fate, Incurable Diseases, Lucifer, Demons, and a Pegasus with a Mission, and it All Makes as Much Sense as a Dream.But, it has its Charm and Pulls at the Heartstrings Quite Heavily. There is a Miscast Devil Disguised as an Out of Time Will Smith. But the Rest of the Cast are OK with Russell Crowe Happily Chewing the Thing and Colin Farrell Looking Determined and Thoughtful as He Discovers Many Rules and Regulations Concerning the Ways of the Universe.Overall, it is an Overbaked and Underrated Movie that has been Pummeled by Critics and is an Easy Pile-On because of its Sentimentality and Ambitious Production Full of Wonders and Willful Seriousness. It can be Enjoyed if You just Let Go and Let its Gooey Goofiness Provide and Escape to Another Dimension of Fallen Angels and Angelic Characters. A Kind of Throwback to a More Innocent Age of Cinema where Cynical Critics were Not Welcome.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-109

ur33374263

title: Cynical Critics Hated It…But Worth a Watch review: Academy Award Winner, Writer Goldsman, Turns Debut Director in this Always Fantastical Fantasy About, well, there's the Rub, a Lot of Things. It Manages to Cobble Together, Time Displacement, the Supernatural, the Cosmos, Smarmy Romanticism, Heartfelt Sincerity, Children of Fate, Incurable Diseases, Lucifer, Demons, and a Pegasus with a Mission, and it All Makes as Much Sense as a Dream.But, it has its Charm and Pulls at the Heartstrings Quite Heavily. There is a Miscast Devil Disguised as an Out of Time Will Smith. But the Rest of the Cast are OK with Russell Crowe Happily Chewing the Thing and Colin Farrell Looking Determined and Thoughtful as He Discovers Many Rules and Regulations Concerning the Ways of the Universe.Overall, it is an Overbaked and Underrated Movie that has been Pummeled by Critics and is an Easy Pile-On because of its Sentimentality and Ambitious Production Full of Wonders and Willful Seriousness. It can be Enjoyed if You just Let Go and Let its Gooey Goofiness Provide and Escape to Another Dimension of Fallen Angels and Angelic Characters. A Kind of Throwback to a More Innocent Age of Cinema where Cynical Critics were Not Welcome.

Uneven tale

tt1837709

The acting goods/talent on hands is exceptional if you look at the cast list. And the emotion Colin F. is able to get by just simply looking at a picture (and conveying that emotion to the viewer) is incredible to say the least. Still the movie feels uneven and might actually work more on kids or have a bigger impact on them. It wouldn't hurt the movie if it picked up the pacing a bit, but it's still decent enough to watch for everyone.The myth/sage or whatever you want to call it, that's being depicted here is well known from other fairy tales too. Russell Crowe is bit too one-sided and the horse "escape" becomes a bit boring after a while. Still nice to see some big time actors doing small bits in this, because they wanted to be in a fairy tale I suppose. Decent movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-117

ur5876717

title: Uneven tale review: The acting goods/talent on hands is exceptional if you look at the cast list. And the emotion Colin F. is able to get by just simply looking at a picture (and conveying that emotion to the viewer) is incredible to say the least. Still the movie feels uneven and might actually work more on kids or have a bigger impact on them. It wouldn't hurt the movie if it picked up the pacing a bit, but it's still decent enough to watch for everyone.The myth/sage or whatever you want to call it, that's being depicted here is well known from other fairy tales too. Russell Crowe is bit too one-sided and the horse "escape" becomes a bit boring after a while. Still nice to see some big time actors doing small bits in this, because they wanted to be in a fairy tale I suppose. Decent movie

Passable whimsy. Good as a date movie

tt1837709

This passable whimsy is not as bad as some critics claim, there are certainly worse ways to spend two hours. Given the romantic plot, it's even quite useful as a date movie. The plot is too convoluted to tell here in detail but it goes something like this: It's New York in 1914, and Colin Farrell is a thief who is on the run from the head thief, the completely evil Soames (Russell Crowe). Farrell gets involved inadvertently with a beautiful young woman suffering from tuberculosis (Jessica Brown Findlay) so Crowe and his henchmen start pursuing the girl too. At mid running time, the action is transported to the present, where Crowe and Farrell manage to somehow still live and fight each other. The movie is quite a mess, but is never unpleasant to watch, though the mix of fantasy (flying horses and so on) probably hurts more than helps the film. There are several extended cameos of famous actors, including Jennifer Connelly, Will Smith and Eva Marie Saint. Based on a famous novel that is reportedly very good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1837709/reviews-26

ur0305809

title: Passable whimsy. Good as a date movie review: This passable whimsy is not as bad as some critics claim, there are certainly worse ways to spend two hours. Given the romantic plot, it's even quite useful as a date movie. The plot is too convoluted to tell here in detail but it goes something like this: It's New York in 1914, and Colin Farrell is a thief who is on the run from the head thief, the completely evil Soames (Russell Crowe). Farrell gets involved inadvertently with a beautiful young woman suffering from tuberculosis (Jessica Brown Findlay) so Crowe and his henchmen start pursuing the girl too. At mid running time, the action is transported to the present, where Crowe and Farrell manage to somehow still live and fight each other. The movie is quite a mess, but is never unpleasant to watch, though the mix of fantasy (flying horses and so on) probably hurts more than helps the film. There are several extended cameos of famous actors, including Jennifer Connelly, Will Smith and Eva Marie Saint. Based on a famous novel that is reportedly very good.

A Best Picture Oscar winner that still shines 80 years on

tt0020629

"All Quiet on the Western Front", the 1930 Oscar winner for Best Picture, is based on the novel of the same name by German author Erich Maria Remarque. The film illustrates the physical and emotional hardships faced by German soldiers during WWI, along with their growing detachment from civilized society.To be honest, "All Quiet on the Western Front" is far from a perfect film. For instance, the sound is spotty, which is no surprise given the film's release only a few years after the advent of 'talkies'. The editing also leaves something to be desired and some of Lewis Milestone's directorial choices are debatable. Furthermore, the script is unfocused in the early going and Lew Ayres' acting is sometimes underwhelming.All of that being said, the film succeeds despite its many flaws. Once the script finds its stride the story is quite satisfying, both in terms of plot and theme. Likewise, Milestone's direction may be somewhat erratic but the battlefield scenes are nothing short of spectacular. As for the acting, Louis Wolheim is a standout and even though Lew Ayres' acting isn't great it doesn't prevent us from caring about the fate of the film's main character.Ultimately, I think that the two Oscars that the film won (Best Picture and Best Director) were warranted but it is the film's story that makes it timeless. Eighty years on, "All Quiet on the Western Front" remains a powerful anti-war film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-167

ur17822437

title: A Best Picture Oscar winner that still shines 80 years on review: "All Quiet on the Western Front", the 1930 Oscar winner for Best Picture, is based on the novel of the same name by German author Erich Maria Remarque. The film illustrates the physical and emotional hardships faced by German soldiers during WWI, along with their growing detachment from civilized society.To be honest, "All Quiet on the Western Front" is far from a perfect film. For instance, the sound is spotty, which is no surprise given the film's release only a few years after the advent of 'talkies'. The editing also leaves something to be desired and some of Lewis Milestone's directorial choices are debatable. Furthermore, the script is unfocused in the early going and Lew Ayres' acting is sometimes underwhelming.All of that being said, the film succeeds despite its many flaws. Once the script finds its stride the story is quite satisfying, both in terms of plot and theme. Likewise, Milestone's direction may be somewhat erratic but the battlefield scenes are nothing short of spectacular. As for the acting, Louis Wolheim is a standout and even though Lew Ayres' acting isn't great it doesn't prevent us from caring about the fate of the film's main character.Ultimately, I think that the two Oscars that the film won (Best Picture and Best Director) were warranted but it is the film's story that makes it timeless. Eighty years on, "All Quiet on the Western Front" remains a powerful anti-war film.

All Quiet now

tt0020629

IMDb Top 250: 212First of all: I saw the silent version on TCM. This threw me off, because I had anticipated a talking film, but once I learned there were several versions I shrugged it off and watched the film.Remembrance Day (Canadian) is an important day to me, a history fanatic. I believe it's so important to not forget what previous generations have done for us. So All Quiet on the Western Front's message of peace seemed fitting to watch on this special day. It is important to realize what the world was like when this was made. The Great War had ended only 12 years ago, and WWII had not occurred, and in 1930 it wasn't even really on anyone's horizon. 1929 was the start of the Great Depression, and when this film was made. It was also the time when silent films transitioned into talkies. This film was a big gamble- tough topic, big budget, large cast, and it all paid off.'All Quiet' is a visual representation of Grade 10 History. Everything I learned about WWI is present in this film: propaganda at home, peer pressure, poor, unexpected conditions, trenches, mud, loss: but this was new to the people of 1930. So while a viewer now won't be so shocked, they would've been 80 years ago. But 'All Quiet' nails the visual aspect of life in the War.We follow a group of German schoolboys, as they sign up and find out about the horror of war. Through the first half, they are a collective, but eventually the film focuses on Paul. Lew Ayres crafted a character that affected his life. We see a boy become a man, and then the shell of a man.I found some sections to be a tad over-dramatic, like the hospital scene with the boots. It just went on and on, and it didn't help there was lots of dialogue and few cards of words.But 'All Quiet' is best, and most heart-wrenching when everyone stops talking and we see battle. The first real fight we see, after days of shelling, is one of the most nauseating fights ever. And for its time, easily the most violent. The massive scale, the incredibly accurate battlefield, the sheer number of men- it's unbelievable. Seeing the machine gunner mowing down people in a single camera shot, seeing a man disappear with only his hands attached to wire- it's downright upsetting and one of the most epic battles ever. No amount of talk can emphasize a message like dramatic reenactments of trench warfare. And then, when the allies jump into the trenches, the guns go away, the bayonets go away- and the shovels come out. I hate to make this comparison, but Saving Private Ryan wouldn't be possible without this film to pave the way.Some may be turned off by its age, but 'All Quiet' is one of the earliest essential films, and maybe the earliest essential war film. It absolutely deserves its accolades. The message, always relevant, and the ending, always shattering, create an amazing tragic drama that is a very important viewing. 8.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-182

ur26443691

title: All Quiet now review: IMDb Top 250: 212First of all: I saw the silent version on TCM. This threw me off, because I had anticipated a talking film, but once I learned there were several versions I shrugged it off and watched the film.Remembrance Day (Canadian) is an important day to me, a history fanatic. I believe it's so important to not forget what previous generations have done for us. So All Quiet on the Western Front's message of peace seemed fitting to watch on this special day. It is important to realize what the world was like when this was made. The Great War had ended only 12 years ago, and WWII had not occurred, and in 1930 it wasn't even really on anyone's horizon. 1929 was the start of the Great Depression, and when this film was made. It was also the time when silent films transitioned into talkies. This film was a big gamble- tough topic, big budget, large cast, and it all paid off.'All Quiet' is a visual representation of Grade 10 History. Everything I learned about WWI is present in this film: propaganda at home, peer pressure, poor, unexpected conditions, trenches, mud, loss: but this was new to the people of 1930. So while a viewer now won't be so shocked, they would've been 80 years ago. But 'All Quiet' nails the visual aspect of life in the War.We follow a group of German schoolboys, as they sign up and find out about the horror of war. Through the first half, they are a collective, but eventually the film focuses on Paul. Lew Ayres crafted a character that affected his life. We see a boy become a man, and then the shell of a man.I found some sections to be a tad over-dramatic, like the hospital scene with the boots. It just went on and on, and it didn't help there was lots of dialogue and few cards of words.But 'All Quiet' is best, and most heart-wrenching when everyone stops talking and we see battle. The first real fight we see, after days of shelling, is one of the most nauseating fights ever. And for its time, easily the most violent. The massive scale, the incredibly accurate battlefield, the sheer number of men- it's unbelievable. Seeing the machine gunner mowing down people in a single camera shot, seeing a man disappear with only his hands attached to wire- it's downright upsetting and one of the most epic battles ever. No amount of talk can emphasize a message like dramatic reenactments of trench warfare. And then, when the allies jump into the trenches, the guns go away, the bayonets go away- and the shovels come out. I hate to make this comparison, but Saving Private Ryan wouldn't be possible without this film to pave the way.Some may be turned off by its age, but 'All Quiet' is one of the earliest essential films, and maybe the earliest essential war film. It absolutely deserves its accolades. The message, always relevant, and the ending, always shattering, create an amazing tragic drama that is a very important viewing. 8.5/10

"When it comes to dying for your country, it's better not to die at all."

tt0020629

Based upon Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel of the same name ('Im Westen nichts Neues,' in German), Lewis Milestone's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' stands as one of the first great war films, a powerful condemnation of human war and conflict and only the third recipient of the now universally sought-after Academy Award for Best Picture. A vividly realistic account of the effects of War World One on young soldiers, the film also boasts some solid acting, grueling cinematography and an unforgettable message, highlighting so poignantly the sheer folly of war.Perhaps the most curious thing about this film is that, despite being an American production, it follows the misfortunes of a young group of German soldiers. All our German characters speak in fluent English with crisp American accents, though this significant lapse in historical accuracy is extremely effective in allowing us to forget that these men are, after all, the perceived "enemy side" in WWI, enlisting our sympathy towards their plight. No longer is the German army portrayed as a mass of faceless, babbling, immoral evil-doers, but each man feels pain, sadness and terror just like any other person would. In this case, it is the English Army who is reduced to becoming the faceless enemy, though the filmmakers stop well short of condemning their actions. In many scenes, it is made irrefutably clear that, with the exception of the politics of their respective governments, there is little difference between the soldiers of either side. Indeed, remove their uniforms, and two opposing soldiers could conceivably become the best of friends. Many of these soldiers are young and scared; many have wives, children, families to come home to; many will ultimately never return from combat.Particularly poignant is the film's conclusion, as the story's main protagonist, Paul Bäumer (Lew Ayres), is fatally shot whilst reaching towards a quivering butterfly, his outstretched hand falling limp just centimetres from the only remaining thing of beauty in the sullied war zone. This final scene was different from the ending in the book, and, indeed, so late was the decision to shoot it that the director himself was forced to double his own hand as Paul's. 'All Quiet on the Western Front' is considered exceptionally graphic for its era, and the Milestone, in order to illustrate the full horrors of war, did not shy away from including brief glimpses of lifeless bodies and severed limbs.Perhaps a bit melodramatic at times, and not always riveting to watch (some sequences move a bit slowly), Lewis Milestone's classic war film is, nonetheless, not an experience that you are likely to forget anytime soon. Indeed, war is hell, but too often we simply forget that war was hell for the other side, as well...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-134

ur10334028

title: "When it comes to dying for your country, it's better not to die at all." review: Based upon Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel of the same name ('Im Westen nichts Neues,' in German), Lewis Milestone's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' stands as one of the first great war films, a powerful condemnation of human war and conflict and only the third recipient of the now universally sought-after Academy Award for Best Picture. A vividly realistic account of the effects of War World One on young soldiers, the film also boasts some solid acting, grueling cinematography and an unforgettable message, highlighting so poignantly the sheer folly of war.Perhaps the most curious thing about this film is that, despite being an American production, it follows the misfortunes of a young group of German soldiers. All our German characters speak in fluent English with crisp American accents, though this significant lapse in historical accuracy is extremely effective in allowing us to forget that these men are, after all, the perceived "enemy side" in WWI, enlisting our sympathy towards their plight. No longer is the German army portrayed as a mass of faceless, babbling, immoral evil-doers, but each man feels pain, sadness and terror just like any other person would. In this case, it is the English Army who is reduced to becoming the faceless enemy, though the filmmakers stop well short of condemning their actions. In many scenes, it is made irrefutably clear that, with the exception of the politics of their respective governments, there is little difference between the soldiers of either side. Indeed, remove their uniforms, and two opposing soldiers could conceivably become the best of friends. Many of these soldiers are young and scared; many have wives, children, families to come home to; many will ultimately never return from combat.Particularly poignant is the film's conclusion, as the story's main protagonist, Paul Bäumer (Lew Ayres), is fatally shot whilst reaching towards a quivering butterfly, his outstretched hand falling limp just centimetres from the only remaining thing of beauty in the sullied war zone. This final scene was different from the ending in the book, and, indeed, so late was the decision to shoot it that the director himself was forced to double his own hand as Paul's. 'All Quiet on the Western Front' is considered exceptionally graphic for its era, and the Milestone, in order to illustrate the full horrors of war, did not shy away from including brief glimpses of lifeless bodies and severed limbs.Perhaps a bit melodramatic at times, and not always riveting to watch (some sequences move a bit slowly), Lewis Milestone's classic war film is, nonetheless, not an experience that you are likely to forget anytime soon. Indeed, war is hell, but too often we simply forget that war was hell for the other side, as well...

A little bit of truth for World War I...

tt0020629

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is a classic history - drama movie in which we are in World War I and through the experiences of a young soldier we watch the tragedy and the pain of war through the eyes of individuals. This movie is based on a novel by German author, Erich Maria Remarque.I liked this movie because it shows the truth about war and especially World War I and how difficult are things there for soldiers. We watch their feelings and their emotions when they are in the war, from what they think about life in general and their lives until what they have to do to survive. This movie shows us not something heroic or any kind of hero but the cruelness and the pain of people who are in that war. I have to admit that the direction of this movie which made by Lewis Milestone was very good (won the Oscar for the Best Director) and of course the interpretation of Lew Ayres who played as Paul was simply outstanding.Finally I have to say that "All Quiet on the Western Front" is a must see movie when we talk about history movies. This movie combines very well events from World War I with the true drama of that war and this is something that makes this movie so good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-219

ur33907744

title: A little bit of truth for World War I... review: "All Quiet on the Western Front" is a classic history - drama movie in which we are in World War I and through the experiences of a young soldier we watch the tragedy and the pain of war through the eyes of individuals. This movie is based on a novel by German author, Erich Maria Remarque.I liked this movie because it shows the truth about war and especially World War I and how difficult are things there for soldiers. We watch their feelings and their emotions when they are in the war, from what they think about life in general and their lives until what they have to do to survive. This movie shows us not something heroic or any kind of hero but the cruelness and the pain of people who are in that war. I have to admit that the direction of this movie which made by Lewis Milestone was very good (won the Oscar for the Best Director) and of course the interpretation of Lew Ayres who played as Paul was simply outstanding.Finally I have to say that "All Quiet on the Western Front" is a must see movie when we talk about history movies. This movie combines very well events from World War I with the true drama of that war and this is something that makes this movie so good.

it is a masterpiece of a movie.

tt0020629

All Quiet On the Western Front is a movie that most "Doves" over the age of 30 will appreciate. Most "Hawks" may not". I am a Hawk. I enjoy war movies that show the "good guys" winning and the action on many war films. However, it is a masterpiece of a movie. This is a movie that basically shows the senselessness of war. The movie was an international hit. Lew Ayes initially tried out for a bit part for this film and the director saw him perfect for the lead. He got it and was instantly a star. This is not a prime time movie. It is a movie that demands your attention and thoughts. The movie is very depressing. The pace of the movie is deliberately slow. No popcorn here. This movie is for thinking, not relaxing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-208

ur28233245

title: it is a masterpiece of a movie. review: All Quiet On the Western Front is a movie that most "Doves" over the age of 30 will appreciate. Most "Hawks" may not". I am a Hawk. I enjoy war movies that show the "good guys" winning and the action on many war films. However, it is a masterpiece of a movie. This is a movie that basically shows the senselessness of war. The movie was an international hit. Lew Ayes initially tried out for a bit part for this film and the director saw him perfect for the lead. He got it and was instantly a star. This is not a prime time movie. It is a movie that demands your attention and thoughts. The movie is very depressing. The pace of the movie is deliberately slow. No popcorn here. This movie is for thinking, not relaxing.

Milestone's First and Best Anti-War Epic

tt0020629

Louis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front" is a testament not only to the resilience of author Erich Maria Remarque, who was wounded five times, but also to the determination by Universal Pictures producer Carl Laemmle, Jr., son of Universal Studios founder Carl Laemmle, to produce prestige films. If any movie demonstrated the absurdity of war, this movie does with images and scenes that are unforgettable. Told from the perspective of the Kaiser's army, we follow a school boy and his pals from the class room to the trenches. Initially, an elderly, spectacled, school teacher raves about how they must defend the pride of the fatherland as soldiers can be seen marching outside past the school. "Now, my beloved class, this is what we must do. Strike with all our power. Give every ounce of strength to win victory before the end of the year. It is with reluctance that I bring this subject up again. You are the life of the fatherland, you boys. You are the iron men of Germany. You are the gay heroes who will repulse the enemy when you are called upon to do so. It is not for me to suggest that any of you should stand up and offer to defend his country. But I wonder if such a thing is going through your heads. I know that in one of the schools, the boys have risen up in the classroom and enlisted in a mass. But, of course, if such a thing should happen here, you would not blame me for a feeling of pride." Paul (Lew Ayers) and then his pals encounter the true horrors of war. These horrors include not only the actual battlefield but the devastating horrors on their own side of the battlefield. Later, we watch as our protagonists struggle to make sense out of war and how it started. The most captivating character of the film is Kat (Louis Wolheim) who steals the film. Compared with contemporary films, "All Quiet on the Western Front" lacks the brutality of war, aside from one shot of two severed hands clinging to a barbed wire fence. Like most memorable war pictures, the action is confined to the trenches with no scenes played out in map rooms as general pontificate about strategy. Milestone would later helm more war movies, including "The Purple Heart" (1944), "A Walk in the Sun" (1945), "Halls of Montezuma" (1950) and "Pork Chop Hill" (1959).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-221

ur2079400

title: Milestone's First and Best Anti-War Epic review: Louis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front" is a testament not only to the resilience of author Erich Maria Remarque, who was wounded five times, but also to the determination by Universal Pictures producer Carl Laemmle, Jr., son of Universal Studios founder Carl Laemmle, to produce prestige films. If any movie demonstrated the absurdity of war, this movie does with images and scenes that are unforgettable. Told from the perspective of the Kaiser's army, we follow a school boy and his pals from the class room to the trenches. Initially, an elderly, spectacled, school teacher raves about how they must defend the pride of the fatherland as soldiers can be seen marching outside past the school. "Now, my beloved class, this is what we must do. Strike with all our power. Give every ounce of strength to win victory before the end of the year. It is with reluctance that I bring this subject up again. You are the life of the fatherland, you boys. You are the iron men of Germany. You are the gay heroes who will repulse the enemy when you are called upon to do so. It is not for me to suggest that any of you should stand up and offer to defend his country. But I wonder if such a thing is going through your heads. I know that in one of the schools, the boys have risen up in the classroom and enlisted in a mass. But, of course, if such a thing should happen here, you would not blame me for a feeling of pride." Paul (Lew Ayers) and then his pals encounter the true horrors of war. These horrors include not only the actual battlefield but the devastating horrors on their own side of the battlefield. Later, we watch as our protagonists struggle to make sense out of war and how it started. The most captivating character of the film is Kat (Louis Wolheim) who steals the film. Compared with contemporary films, "All Quiet on the Western Front" lacks the brutality of war, aside from one shot of two severed hands clinging to a barbed wire fence. Like most memorable war pictures, the action is confined to the trenches with no scenes played out in map rooms as general pontificate about strategy. Milestone would later helm more war movies, including "The Purple Heart" (1944), "A Walk in the Sun" (1945), "Halls of Montezuma" (1950) and "Pork Chop Hill" (1959).

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

tt0020629

The irony of this quote ("Sweet and fitting it is to die for the fatherland) is what All Quiet on the Western Front is all about. The movie paints a very clear, even blindly obvious, picture of the difference between the young recruit's expectation of battlefield glory and the battle weary veteran's knowledge of the bloody reality of war. The beginning of the movie suggests a military atmosphere that will stifle everything else in American daily life, as a military marching bands trudges past, drowning out the words of a lecturer in a classroom, but then changes directions when we realize that that professor is spouting militaristic propaganda at his young male students, vehemently urging them to join up and fight for their country. By the end of his speech, modern audiences might be astonished at the naked lies about battle, but the young men are cheering by the end and desperate to enlist.There is, of course, massive difference between the audiences that first saw the film in April 1930 and today's audiences, and the thematic elements make this abundantly clear. Remember that this movie, one of our first Best Picture winners, was made for an audience most of whom had never seen moving images of war, and had no idea what life was really like on the battlefield. Because of that, the movie lacks in realism, although mostly only in the behavior and dialogue of the men. The actual battle scenes are startlingly realistic.The men remind me of reading old Hardy Boys books, which contain dialogue which can't possibly be at all realistic. Some of the dialogue here in this movie is funny because it is so different from how people would speak today ("You are the gay heroes that will repulse the enemy when called upon to do so!"), but mostly it is simply the ham-handed delivery of the thematic elements that gets a little tiring ("You're just a man, like me, and I killed you! We only wanted to live, you and I. If we didn't have these guns and these uniforms, we could be brothers!").Needless to say, the men quickly realize that they are not running off to the glorious battle. As with any war, when they left home, they were leaving to fight for their country. But when they arrived at their destination they find that they're not fighting for their country at all, they're fighting for their lives. My historical knowledge of World War I is pretty limited, so I was a little confused at one scene where four American soldiers are bathing in the river, and soon notice three attractive French women casually strolling past the river. Initially I thought that they were just camping near a small village, apparently oblivious to the war, until the men managed to seduce the women using some soggy bread that had been soaked in the dirty river water, suddenly revealing that these smiling young women are virtually starving. The plight of the French civilians is hardly portrayed well.One soldier goes home on temporary leave, and the movie also gets his battle remorse totally wrong. When he sees his family, he mumbles and trudges past, indifferent to see his loved ones again. It is as though he has lost his job, not returned after months and months and months at war. Soon he is at a table talking to some of the old politicians pulling the strings of the war, who accuse him of not knowing a thing about it when he tells them that the war isn't what they think it is. To say that this is an anti-war film is certainly an understatement. In fact, the film ends on a decidedly unpatriotic note. A soldier speaks in the same classroom he used to go to, telling the eager young men about the reality of war. "It's dirty and painful to die for your country, And what good is it? Death is stronger than duty to one's country."He then returns to the front, which now feels more like home to him than his home. The film has a great, meaningful ending, as well. It is as anti-climactic as you can imagine, but has a deep and resonating meaning. The movie has not dated well, but being one of America's earliest war films, it is certainly successful.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-146

ur0562732

title: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." review: The irony of this quote ("Sweet and fitting it is to die for the fatherland) is what All Quiet on the Western Front is all about. The movie paints a very clear, even blindly obvious, picture of the difference between the young recruit's expectation of battlefield glory and the battle weary veteran's knowledge of the bloody reality of war. The beginning of the movie suggests a military atmosphere that will stifle everything else in American daily life, as a military marching bands trudges past, drowning out the words of a lecturer in a classroom, but then changes directions when we realize that that professor is spouting militaristic propaganda at his young male students, vehemently urging them to join up and fight for their country. By the end of his speech, modern audiences might be astonished at the naked lies about battle, but the young men are cheering by the end and desperate to enlist.There is, of course, massive difference between the audiences that first saw the film in April 1930 and today's audiences, and the thematic elements make this abundantly clear. Remember that this movie, one of our first Best Picture winners, was made for an audience most of whom had never seen moving images of war, and had no idea what life was really like on the battlefield. Because of that, the movie lacks in realism, although mostly only in the behavior and dialogue of the men. The actual battle scenes are startlingly realistic.The men remind me of reading old Hardy Boys books, which contain dialogue which can't possibly be at all realistic. Some of the dialogue here in this movie is funny because it is so different from how people would speak today ("You are the gay heroes that will repulse the enemy when called upon to do so!"), but mostly it is simply the ham-handed delivery of the thematic elements that gets a little tiring ("You're just a man, like me, and I killed you! We only wanted to live, you and I. If we didn't have these guns and these uniforms, we could be brothers!").Needless to say, the men quickly realize that they are not running off to the glorious battle. As with any war, when they left home, they were leaving to fight for their country. But when they arrived at their destination they find that they're not fighting for their country at all, they're fighting for their lives. My historical knowledge of World War I is pretty limited, so I was a little confused at one scene where four American soldiers are bathing in the river, and soon notice three attractive French women casually strolling past the river. Initially I thought that they were just camping near a small village, apparently oblivious to the war, until the men managed to seduce the women using some soggy bread that had been soaked in the dirty river water, suddenly revealing that these smiling young women are virtually starving. The plight of the French civilians is hardly portrayed well.One soldier goes home on temporary leave, and the movie also gets his battle remorse totally wrong. When he sees his family, he mumbles and trudges past, indifferent to see his loved ones again. It is as though he has lost his job, not returned after months and months and months at war. Soon he is at a table talking to some of the old politicians pulling the strings of the war, who accuse him of not knowing a thing about it when he tells them that the war isn't what they think it is. To say that this is an anti-war film is certainly an understatement. In fact, the film ends on a decidedly unpatriotic note. A soldier speaks in the same classroom he used to go to, telling the eager young men about the reality of war. "It's dirty and painful to die for your country, And what good is it? Death is stronger than duty to one's country."He then returns to the front, which now feels more like home to him than his home. The film has a great, meaningful ending, as well. It is as anti-climactic as you can imagine, but has a deep and resonating meaning. The movie has not dated well, but being one of America's earliest war films, it is certainly successful.

Still powerful 80+ years later. ...

tt0020629

I watched this movie for the first time last night. It's amazing that it was made in 1930 but still holds up so well today. One of the best stories I've seen that shows the futility of war and the waste of life and resources is causes.It's a little weird at first adjusting to the German perspective in WW-1 (especially since it's in English); but this story would have the same poignancy if placed in any nationality or language. Well made for the era (only 12 years after the Actual war) with good performances all around. I recommend it for anyone interested in war films or as a study in film making. The anti-war message is as relevant as ever and I think this film should be mandatory viewing for all high school students.-Randawg.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-198

ur11026082

title: Still powerful 80+ years later. ... review: I watched this movie for the first time last night. It's amazing that it was made in 1930 but still holds up so well today. One of the best stories I've seen that shows the futility of war and the waste of life and resources is causes.It's a little weird at first adjusting to the German perspective in WW-1 (especially since it's in English); but this story would have the same poignancy if placed in any nationality or language. Well made for the era (only 12 years after the Actual war) with good performances all around. I recommend it for anyone interested in war films or as a study in film making. The anti-war message is as relevant as ever and I think this film should be mandatory viewing for all high school students.-Randawg.

A Bit Theatrical and Blunt, But Good

tt0020629

A young soldier (Lew Ayres) faces profound disillusionment in the soul-destroying horror of World War I.Early in the film, the characters discuss the causes of war... one country "offends" another, but what does that mean? If nobody wants war, why do we have it? Of course, there are reasons, but it can all seem a bit silly.Because of the period this was made, there is plenty of over the top, theatrical acting. And the anti-war message is so incredibly blunt, it almost cannot be taken seriously at times. Not that I disagree with the film and what was trying to say, but if these young men are dying, the horrors of war do not actually need to be explained out loud.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-214

ur1234929

title: A Bit Theatrical and Blunt, But Good review: A young soldier (Lew Ayres) faces profound disillusionment in the soul-destroying horror of World War I.Early in the film, the characters discuss the causes of war... one country "offends" another, but what does that mean? If nobody wants war, why do we have it? Of course, there are reasons, but it can all seem a bit silly.Because of the period this was made, there is plenty of over the top, theatrical acting. And the anti-war message is so incredibly blunt, it almost cannot be taken seriously at times. Not that I disagree with the film and what was trying to say, but if these young men are dying, the horrors of war do not actually need to be explained out loud.

pure excellence in the war movie genre

tt0020629

From the fact it was made in 1930, you could class 'All Quiet on the Western Front' as a war movie museum piece, but Lewis Milestone's film is a seminal piece of anti-war propaganda, focusing on the Great War from the perspective of a group of German soldiers, in particular Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres). Ayres gives a sensitive and powerful performance: by the 2nd World War the actor chose to serve as a medic, where he gained distinction.Remembered for the sequence with the butterfly at the end in particular, this early talkie manages to set its scene and transmit a powerful message. An involving and clever film which on its recent restoration and cinema re-release has taken on new significance in the 21st century.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020629/reviews-76

ur0137908

title: pure excellence in the war movie genre review: From the fact it was made in 1930, you could class 'All Quiet on the Western Front' as a war movie museum piece, but Lewis Milestone's film is a seminal piece of anti-war propaganda, focusing on the Great War from the perspective of a group of German soldiers, in particular Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres). Ayres gives a sensitive and powerful performance: by the 2nd World War the actor chose to serve as a medic, where he gained distinction.Remembered for the sequence with the butterfly at the end in particular, this early talkie manages to set its scene and transmit a powerful message. An involving and clever film which on its recent restoration and cinema re-release has taken on new significance in the 21st century.