Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

First of all, I love me a heist movie. Cons, heists, whatever you call them, I love them. However, the trailer for this movie didn't really sell the premise to me, and I wasn't that interested.Boy, was I wrong. With the exception of the last quarter, the movie is actually surprisingly smart, and entertaining. While there are let downs within the filmmaking (The amount of CGI they use for the magic is baffling), the narrative is smartly weaved throughout.The cast work well together, and as soon as we pass the "catalyst" moment, the characters stop being quite so annoying (and... shouty... in Isla Fisher's case), and settle into their roles quite well to the point that they're all very likable. Eisenberg in particular was a standout to me, I was very happy to see him play a more confident character than we've seen of him.As for what didn't work... The ending was stupid. That's all I'm saying about that, because that's all I could work out.I would recommend the movie, but I'd also advise the viewer not to raise their hopes too high. It's a very good and very smart movie, but it slips off into something much more disappointing and sloppy near the end.

This is an action movie first and foremost and as such I guess it's a pretty good one. If like me you kind of hope for something in addition to the car chases and explosions, perhaps a meaningful plot idea that relates to the human predicament, well, I think they tried hard to craft this out of the Batman legend but to be honest I don't think the latter has enough depth to yield a huge amount of satisfaction there.The characterization is a bit beyond comic book - perhaps a 3D comic? The plot is really just comic book fantasy. The late Heath Ledger portrays a very creepy Joker spinning out of any sort of social control, though how he manages to organize all those drums of explosives planted around the city day after day beats me as he doesn't seem to have any sort of loyal gang (unlike the Mafia boss he usurps) and why would he have? If we're to take him as a real character then he'd be a loner who therefore wouldn't have much access to resources or assistance. And poor old billionaire Batman (though we're told it's very early Batman years, in fact pre-Robin)is reflecting on his wearying secret role, which Gotham City is decidedly ambivalent about. Not to mention the grueling physical pace he has to keep up and the cost of the technology which would make NASA look cheap.I guess this is another post-9/11 civic disaster movie and I seem to remember hearing the Joker referred to as a terrorist on at least one occasion. However 9/11 happened once. The New Yorkers hung in there, to everyone's admiration. But the Joker has no supporters or ideological basis, and is simply dedicated to chaos. So by golly Batman if I lived in Gotham city amid all that recurrent carnage I'd be moving to New Mexico or somewhere within the week, and I'll bet I wouldn't be the only one.Perhaps there is some sort of comment we can infer, which is the devil's dance between chaos and order, the interdependence of the two principles, and how this interaction is perceived at an urban social level. There is also the constant play on the significance of appearances versus concealment, the fact that appearances can be very incomplete and deceptive, and what is concealed is very dangerous indeed. And what the hell are the forces of good anyway - and are concentration of power and universal electronic surveillance justified (yes the film DOES pose these questions)? So certainly quite a dark and hellish atmosphere, and I don't think anyone feels any more secure at the end than they did at the beginning.Looks like we'll have to have a sequel...

Missed chance for the Bourne vehicle. Great is Damon's believable performance of Bourne, although one might expect a bit more emotion after a three year run from everybody. Second best thing is the action which is spectacular but, unfortunately, in such overwhelming abundance, that it starts to annoy. Besides that, the story is... well, what IS the story? After two Bourne-is-on-the-run flicks, this is just a third. There's a bit of recap at the beginning and some wrapping up at the end, but it's just not satisfying enough to explain three years and three films of running and waiting. Too bad, for something that started from such a great story by Ludlum. But then again; what's the objective? If you're in it for the action, there might not be a better series so far. But if you're looking for a bit of a decent story, you might as well go back to the 1988 mini series with Richard Chamberlain. Might look a bit dusty, but great story.

If you haven't seen Hannibal, go see it. It is a good movie. It wasn't Silence good, but very good. Anthony Hopkins gives an outstanding performance. Julliane Moore did a great job as Clarice. The other actors did great, too. Warning, if you have a weak stomach, then look away during a few scenes. I was cheering for Hannibal the whole movie. I thought he was the best character.The ten year wait was worth it. The movie gives a combination of action, drama, horror, and comedy (dark comedy) in this movie I gave an 8. I especially noticed how extremely smart this man appeared. He knew everything that was going on.Advice before I finish, if you haven's seen it, see it. If you have see it again. If you listen to me, then goody goody!

This film is an anti-intellectual zenith. It is offensive at least for someone who has a rudimentary knowledge of astrophysics and the theory of relativity. I have never seen such s-f movie full of nonsense. At least in the last 20 years. Every single law of physics is broken or adjusted to Hollywood pulp. Ethical problems concerning time travel were already discussed 60 years ago. Medea/Gaia hypothesis is an old fairy tale. Pseudo- philosophical use of feelings with respect to the multi-dimensional time-space is simply ridiculous. Situations that occur in the vicinity of the event horizon: I can only say: serious case of ignorance. And standard use moral treatise about human nature based on common sense is too obvious. Someone who makes movies based on comic books shouldn't be allowed to make a s-f movie. Really bad choice!! I am disappointed. Very disappointed. 1 point is for the robots. Best regards.

I was hoping for another Casino Royale but it was not to be. The song by Adele was the highlight of this Bond movie. A mindless plot, uninspired fight scenes, Judy Dench with lines that I'm sure she tried to forget. No tension, predictable twists, senseless violence and boring chase scenes that go on and on and on and on. The villain was a gay ponce who was about as menacing as Mr. Magoo, he did however tell an interesting rat story. Back in the old days you could go see a Bond movie at a drive in theatre. In-between necking bouts with your girlfriend you could keep up with the standard simple plot of Mad scientist tries to destroy or take over world. Back then you never noticed all the imperfections as you were usually distracted, now you sit and watch the whole thing and realize just how bad they are.

Ridley Scott's Oscar-winning ersatz epic is one of the least spectacular big-screen spectacles ever sold to an undemanding public: a sand-and-sandal throwback stripped of the genre's all too necessary guilty pleasures. The idea was to recreate for today's digital generation a wide-screen Roman Empire costume drama from Hollywood's pre-video adolescence, but all the fancy computer imagery (and state-of-the-art budget) only makes the new film look and sound more solemn and pompous than its beefcake role models. Worse yet, the occasional token nod toward old-fashioned visual grandeur isn't enough to camouflage the claustrophobic TV screen compositions and typically frantic Madison Avenue editing job (designed, perhaps, to hide the digital wrinkles).Russell Crowe is the title character: a Roman general fallen from imperial favor, battling for his life and honor on the floor of the Coliseum, where the prize for victory is another day of slavery and the cost of defeat is a mercifully quick death. Crowe's protagonist is a man of few words, most of them delivered in a flat monotone, matching the equally colorless photography, shaded in picturesque hues of misty gray and mud brown sepia.Don't expect any surprises from the strictly formula riches-to-rags-to-rebel hero scenario, which doesn't even allow the villains (degenerate emperor Joaquin Phoenix and his sister/lover Connie Nielson) a chance to have any fun. Audiences (and too many critics, who should have known better) conditioned by habit to reject anything original made the film a worldwide hit, but even in our current age of diminished expectations it should have been clear that they don't make 'em like they used to anymore.

I did not like this movie. It had it's moments, I will give it that, like some of the car chase scenes were very well done and they were different and daring. And I loved the first five minutes, I was really hoping it would keep going down that path. The music was captivating, I thought Gosling did a great job at portraying his characters emptiness, and some of the cinematography was beautiful. And I even liked the opening credits. But as the story got rolling I found it very difficult to stay engaged. I wasn't learning anything new that I didn't learn in the first five minutes and I didn't really give a crap what happened to any of the characters. I guess maybe because I didn't find the two main characters relationship all that believable or moving. Great films have some sort of message in them, or a great narrative. There's something about the characters that you can relate to. In this film, Gosling's character is not even given any background. We don't know where he came from, what his past is. It's very difficult to relate to him or get why he's doing what he's doing or why he's such an offbeat. They made it very clear that his life was empty but that's about as far as it went. I'm not saying Gosling did a bad job, I think the director did.Not too mention the editing was just ridiculously slow. It's like here's a shot of his head he's staring... staring.... staring.... now camera pans to girl she's staring... staring... staring... Ryan laughs awkwardly.... they stare some more... cut scene. Cool. Also one thing I noticed is Mulligan's character doesn't seem to give much of a crap about her husband when he comes home from jail. Yet when he dies all the sudden she can barely speak and she's so grief stricken. This reaction didn't fit with the way she reacted before. I thought it was kind of a laugh there was nothing about the story that moved me or even excited me I just found it so boring. i'd also like to add the director came up with some main ideas for this movie while he was stoned on some sort of medication after the dentist... I could tell...

Great movies hardly show up at the beginning of the year. "Paul" arrives and delivers a solid punch, with a story that many would never call original, but it is fearlessly executed, and it has a heart of gold. Whereas some of the expletive in "The King's Speech" were a little "too cute" and unnecessary, every single one of the "spicy" words can only add more zing and dimension to the already clever dialog that is the driving force of this very funny tribute to Science Fiction.I read somewhere there were 382 or so references to other movies in here, and I must have to head back to the movies to catch them because there were indeed several, and they are tributes, slight references, funny highlights, and seamlessly woven into the fabric of the film. A movie that tells the story of an extraterrestrial who must find his way back to his home planet or face death."Paul" hasn't quite been a central character in any movie before. This foul-mouthed, funny, and sympathetic creature teams up with a couple of British nerds who have finally made it to their dream vacation/location. Soon, they are being chased by rednecks, religious fanatics, and a few men in black, who happened to be soldiers in an army led by the ultimate "female boss". Has anyone noticed a few references already to some very popular blockbusters? Some of my favorite scenes involve direct and indirect references to "E.T.", "Duel", and "Star Wars", and anyone might think them cheesy and outdated. Most are actually heartfelt and show much affection for the classics in a genre that is often under-appreciated. Mel Brooks would have made light fun of them, but the film feels more accomplished and way more entertaining this way. We know it's fantasy, and it is not new, but we can see a fresh touch up has been added. Just imagine improving on the sense of wonder while looking at the Mothership near the end.Prepare yourself to deal with silly lines, bawdy language, hilarious scenes vaguely resembling a comedy of errors, and an amazing and incredible take on the Cantina Scene in the original "Star Wars". Much praise should go to the cast who did a very good job bringing to life characters that could have been boring and trite. They all gave them solid dimensions and never forgot that behind every alien film that succeeded has been a sense of heart and honesty and a touch of faith to help us believe in its message.***** (5 out of 5) - an instant classic.

ill come out straight...... i just became a Filmer and have started watching every other film. Before that i just used to watch the best films... There are so many bad comments about this film and everyone has a in-valid reason, some are saying that Hayden Christensen made them think about star wars in the whole film and Sam shouldn't have white hair some even said that the good guy should have saved those drowning people.....wtf People wanted this film be like every other typical superhero where the good guy wakes up smiling and start saving the world and in the middle of the film the bad guy comes in out of no where and tries to defeat him but loses at the end.......This film gave something different and everyone came out wining.....i mean change the way u ppl are thinking, like trapped in a box...... What i saw in this film was non stop action... no boring stuff like super heroes tend to fall in love and then u have to see their dating scenes which also leads to the scene when the heroin is captured by the Villain and hero has to save her(Spiderman and Superman).....then i also didn't had any problem with the acting the effects speak for them selves.....i don't need to say anything the idea behind the film was original so give them a little space guys im not saying it was a perfect movie but it still give it 8.9.....definitely a must see movie And stop thinking in the box, do you ppl want to stay with films like superman and spiderman till the end of the world??? Im afraid that they might not make a sequel All thanks to u damn critics..

If you were thinking about seeing The Desolation of Smaug, do yourself a favor and stay home. It's close to 3 hours of your life you will never get back. The plot has almost nothing to do with the book. There are completely fabricated characters and there is NO character development. In fact, I had to go stand in the hall for a minute because my brother & I were laughing so hard about the fact that the third movie could be 3 hours of the cast members literally destroying copies of The Hobbit and it would probably be a better movie than this. The last 30 minutes are completely made up, insulting to Tolkein, and painful to watch. I would actually pay more than I paid to see the movie to get those 3 hours of my life back. I am at a loss for words at how Peter Jackson did so well with the Lord of The Rings movies and then seemingly had a seizure while holding a pen and decided to call it a script and go with it. I think they thought that bringing back Legolas would help the movie, but in fact they only detracted by going ahead & writing him as a bland character who is now, instead of being primarily an archer, a ninja swordsman of some sort. They also opt to attempt to squeeze in a love story instead of actual events that happened in the book, because dull romance sells. If you love the book as much as I do and have any sort of positive expectations for this film, you will be severely let down.

I've been waiting for this movie to come out for a few months. I absolutely loved it!!!! It was very well done and there were few changes to the story (which I was worried about). The special effects (in my opinion) were excellent. And the casting was incredible. I loved how the movie remained so close to the book, with a few slight alterations that worked. I also loved the comedic moments that were built in to the movie. My friends and I were lucky enough to obtain tickets to an early showing and we loved it so much that we bought tickets to the midnight showing as soon as it was over! EVERYONE GO SEE IT!!!!!

I'm not really much of a Star Trek fan (I saw like one season of TNG and some of the movies), but hot damn was this movie badass. During one of the worst summer movie seasons in cinematic history (2009) Star Trek came out and blew audiences and critics away, and for very good reason. It is one of the best summer movies ever and if you call yourself a fan of sci-fi you must see this, and if you love a fun action movie you must see this. Star Trek rewrites the history of the franchise, with a Romulan named Nero going back in time and killing Kirk's father. Nero disappears for a couple decades, but then he returns to finish what he started. The story is so well told and it is incredibly well paced. It truly is the shining example of everything a sci-fi script should encompass, it has great dialogue, good humor, shocking plot twist, and a slam-bang conclusion. It also uses the series mythology well, remember in the old show how Mr.Sulu would just sit on a console? Well now, he is a kickass sword fighter. Aurora is now a super genius, and Bones is just awesome. Hell, I hold this script on par with that of Iron Man. The action in Star Trek is everything I wanted it to be: Constant, well shot, well edited, and is extremely pretty to look at. But what I loved even more than the action and script, was the acting. Chris Pine nails it as Kirk, and the guy who played Spock is perfect in his role, whenever these two are on screen they steal the show. The whole cast does terrific jobs with their roles, and they truly bring these characters to life once again. Star Trek is exactly what summer blockbusters are supposed to be: Well written, gorgeous looking, action packed, smart, beautifully acted, sexy, and insanely fun.

After reading the user comments for this film, i found it disappointing.It definitely was a new concept in its time, but the movie has aged very badly.The bad guys dressed in black look ludicrous with their hats strange jaw chattering noises.It took me a lot of patience to complete the film.As i said the concept was good but the execution was not.Some users have compared it to the Matrix.I however am of the opinion that the later is a much better executed movie and is also less taxing on the brain. Only worth a watch if u are a Connolly fan.Even then avoid it if u can.Five out of ten.

Intense character study of the country's most prolific sniper. The point is made in the film that Chris Kyle's motivation came from trying to prevent terrorists from coming to San Diego or New York, a point that's lost on critics of the Iraq War and our current effort against ISIS and a host of similar minded extremist groups. Of particular note was the discussion around the dinner table with Kyle's father describing the difference between sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. I had never heard that analogy before and it seemed a fitting way to describe the way populations find themselves being categorized. The picture is a character study in the effects of war on a warrior; I didn't see it as particularly pro-war or anti-war, though one's filter will probably see it along political lines. The destructive effects of a soldier's life that affect his family is given the emotional treatment that's called for, and director Eastwood provides the steady hand a story like this deserves. Which begs the question of how Spielberg might have handled it. My understanding is he dropped out of consideration to direct the picture after the screenplay became unmanageable. A Liberal versus Conservative treatment provides plenty of food for thought and it would have been an interesting contrast to see. Nevertheless, what we have is the story of an American hero, defending the rights of critics who can only find hatred in their hearts for soldiers who love their country.

i really went into this movie with an open mind, realizing it was a satire on the fashion industry. and i thought it would be fairly humorous because of stiller and owens. boy, was i wrong. this movie was awful. i like stupid movies, i can laugh at them. by the end of the movie, the only thing i was impressed with was how ben stiller kept that voice and face up the whole time.... this movie really began to hurt my head after a while

It is a story of many stories and I found it to be good for the soul. If you have ever looked up soul groups it seems to have a connection to that concept and how our energies learn over time by mistakes/errors and the ongoing lessons in correcting our emotional reactions. Every time I watch it something new pops out in terms of concept and overall story goals. A great watch and beautiful sound track.

With his career failing, dimwitted male fashion model Stiller is brainwashed and used as a pawn to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia (Asai) by a group of corrupt executives. Pretty decent if you give it a shot, with Taylor's backstory demonstrating some real thought being put into some of these characters. Long list of cameos are real fun, but it's Stiller and Wilson together on screen that takes the cake. The film contains elements from a pair of short films for VH1 Fashion Awards television specials in 1996 and 1997. Surprised there is not more fashion model cameos. The soundtrack is terrible, despite possibly being intentional.★★½ (out of four)

Yesterday this movie was on television. It was the second time I made an attempt to watch it but again I couldn't finish. Somewhere halfway I changed to another program. I find this movie so bad and boring... This is the only movie I can remember not watching all the way to the end.

The director listed for this movie is someone named David McNally. Who? The writing credits are given to Gina Wenkos. Who? Actually Kevin Smith apparently did some work on the script, I hear. Anyway, there is only one name that matters in these credits. Jerry Bruckheimer. Of all the slick, commercial, featherweight productions this man has made, this one might be the most slick. And that's saying something. Coyote Ugly almost makes Days of Thunder look like Shawshank Redemption.That said, the movie is often rather entertaining. Much of the credit would seem to go to Piper Perabo who plays the main character. Her name is Violet, and she's just moved to New York to pursue a song writing career, but it seems like the big city will swallow her up before she ever gets her chance. She ends up taking a job at the bar of record, and the rest of the film details the ups and downs of her time there. It must be noted that Piper Perabo is not only beautiful, but quite charming and likable. As someone watching the movie, you really hope she succeeds. A bad casting choice here could have really given us a turkey of a film. The rest of the cast is spunky, and generally talented. Maria Bello shines as Lil, the owner of the bar. She is actually based on Lil Lovell who was the founder of the franchise. Adam Garcia shows some promise as the male lead, but its a thankless role. John Goodman adds some laughs and acting gravitas as Violet's dad. Tom Brady's baby momma Bridget Moynahan is there as a bitchy bartender. A chunky LeAnn Rimes plays herself in an ending scene. She also provides the vocals whenever Piper is singing. Tyra Banks isn't in it as much as you'd hope.There is not a shred of credibility in any situation we the audience are presented with. For example, the Coyote Ugly bar is about the rowdiest bar east of the Double Duece in Jasper, MO. Yet, there is only ONE bouncer who sits by the door and mostly just reads. Fights in this bar can be broken up simply by throwing a bucket of ice down on the crazy patrons. Violet lives in Chinatown, yet there are never any Asian people around. Kevin seems to be broke and has to do all kinds of odd jobs around town, yet he drives a huge gas-guzzling old car when public transportation would be the likely choice for such a person. Or how about the scene where Violet has just humiliated herself and is hiding out in the bathroom. Another bartender gal informs her that there is a guy at the bar asking about her. "Asking for me?", Violet asks, completely stunned. Because obviously nobody in a bar full of drunk men would ever ask around about a hot new employee. Sure. But this film takes place in a magical dimension known as Bruckheimer Land, where the improbable is not just possible. It is demanded. You know, here's a big question..... since this film was such a hit, why was there never a sequel? Since 85% of all films released from Hollywood now are either a remake, sequel, or based on a comic book, why was no sequel for Coyote Ugly ever made. Heck, this summer we're getting sequels for Hell Boy, and the Hulk. Those weren't even hits!!! 6 of 10 stars for Coyote Ugly.The Hound.

20 century fox finally did something right. They not only gave a great character justice, but they casted possibly the best person to play him. Ryan Reynolds did to Deadpool what peanut butter did to jelly. Yeah!! That good! The movie is made for the fans the comic book, but more importantly its made with one thing in mind. Don't hold any punches, literally & figuratively. Now you may not get all the comic book jokes or puns, but you will get satisfied with not only the humor, but great action and effects. I have waited along time for one of the X-Men movies to do my boy Colossus justice, whoever thought it would be in Deadpool. Date movie, sure (if she likes that kinda of thing), family movie/kids movie... not so much. Deadpool will make waves in this industry with it being a lower budget comic book movie that was a hit in my eyes. With a lot of promise for future movies, 20th Century fox, just might have redeemed its self from the fantastic four.....Well maybe not, but this was definitely a step in the right direction.

Totally nonsensical movie. I gave this movie 3/10 just because of the special effects of this movie. The movie did not have any story sense and all the characters seemed very weak. I am not sure what script writer was thinking when he was writing the dialogues of the characters while they were in grave danger they were sounding like they are out on some kind of adventure ride and everybody knew they are going to make it and there was no sign of doubt in anybody's mind which made the whole plot very weak. Also there were some scenes which actually disrespect certain countries and their beliefs. Overall a total non-sense movie. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS C-grade movie.

**CONTAINS PLOT REFERENCES AND SOME SPOILERS**Before approaching Beauty and the Beast it is worth mentioning that this is a movie which Disney himself had always intended to make before his death. The finished product I should imagine would fail to disappoint even he himself the most intimidating of perfectionists.What separates this particular Disney offering from the usual litany of animated boy meets girl stories previously is the particularly deft and mature characterisation. We have always come to expect charming and technically leading animation from Disney, but the characters themselves are what sets this movie apart as a jewel in the studio's crown.Belle is a truly contemporary and cerebral heroine, beset by a life that offers little to her aspiring imagination and intelligence. The small village in which she lives with her father seems to be a place in which she does not fit. She is looked upon as a crank because her passion is reading. Her father is viewed as insane because of his quirky inventions.Beast is by far the most deep and complex Disney character to date. He is not a perfect prince, far from it- but rather a fallen man, and the product of his own misfortune. Filled with bitterness and cynicism, he exists in a damned world of his own creation and must endure the limbo that surrounds him as a result of his selfish choices in life. Pride has led to his great fall and hope has deserted him. From the outside the viewer feels the plight of both of the lead characters and it is a joy to watch both characters come together, not in the usual Disney formula of a magic kiss, but a real relationship with real pitfalls and real emotional challenges.We witness lonely bookworm Belle finding that books can not be judged by their cover, finding a true friend for the first time in her life, and ultimately true love. Beast's gradual redemption ensues and he discovers the error of his ways, and abandons his defences and even his sense of self in order to truly love Belle.The music delights and the animation charms with a surrounding plethora of delightful supporting characters which appeal to both children and adults alike. Villain and all round sexist boor Gaston adds some comic relief and grotesque cave-man charm in his desire for Belle whom he views as another beautiful hunting trophy for the wall of his lodge.The musical aspect of the movie is astoundingly well written and performed. Each song lends something unique to the movie as a whole without detracting or seeming unintuitive to the storyline.One of the most charming things about this movie is that its French origins have not been eliminated by Disney, but incorporated into a colourful backdrop for a story that will stand the test of time.This movie has so many personal high points for me that I wish I could mention them all. It contains one of the greatest pieces of animation I have ever seen in the Beast's transformation at the end of the film. Beast emerges from his seeming demise magically and changes to his staggeringly beautiful human form almost resembling Michaelangelo's David emerging from the marble. This ending is a fitting climax to a great work of both animation and storytelling.In conclusion this is an unmissable slice of classic animation, served up so beautifully that future generations will keep coming back for more. Beauty and the Beast was well deserving of it's Best Picture nomination, for here at last is a Disney story which will stand the test of time and melt the heart of even the most cynical beast.10/10

The movie was great in all but the story caught me by surprise. I loved the action and the special effects but it got me kind of confused about the mandarin villain and seeing Tony Stark blow up all his suits at the end. It was different from the other iron man movies and that was what i liked about it. I was amazed how they tried to relate the avengers to the movie and telling you all that Tony's been through. The iron patriot was a perfect idea to put in this film and seeing Tony with a new iron man suit. It felt pretty intense at some parts of the film and i think that's what made all the difference because the last two films didn't feel as seriously intense as this film. It makes you think at the end Tony doesn't want to be a hero anymore but something tells me he will return. That's definitely making me look forward to the Avengers 2. Overall it was a great movie and especially for Marvel fans.

This modern classic is an inspiration to movies of today, as of the quirky and unique dialogue alongside multiple intertwining tales of gangsters and robbers, Quentin Tarantino's stunningly original screenplay shows why it has the 5th top spot on IMDb. The 'Deja Vu' beginning, really creates a cliffhanger, I couldn't take my eyes of the screen! The film draws a fine line between comedy and drama with all the great aspects which many movies from today just do not have, the 1994 gangster flick felt as if it started its own sub-genre of 'Tarantino Films' with the sharing some of the most talented actors of all time, amongst the most amazing dialogue (my opinion)

I suppose people will typically talk about they loved the NY and Rome stories, but hated the Helsinki segment, or vice-versa, or whatever. This probably comes from thinking of the entire movie as belonging to a single genre--drama, comedy, satire. If you take each story by itself, though, with an open mind, you will find yourself being entertained (mostly) in five different ways. Although of course we will all have our favorites. I wondered briefly why there wasn't a segment set in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan--to make it truly global. Of course it wouldn't be night at the same time on that side of the world. Jarmusch should have done it anyway.Some think the movie is too long. But this is obviously a movie you don't need to watch in a single sitting; indeed, for the reason stated above, it's perhaps best watched a little at a time.

This movie just reminds me of all mithun chakravarthy type of movies where in the end the hero just kills all the bad guys and every one lives happily ever after.This movie seems to be made without any script or forethought. Even the style element was missing. And just when you thought the court room scene will spring a surprise it comes down with a big thud.The actress was an inspiration for bad actor wannabes and the sad scenes were most laughable. Mark Wahlberg was pretty disappointing especially after having seen his Italian Job and Departed.Why was that FBI officer always taking deep breaths. Did he flunk his medical check up for FBI. The most laughable were the villains. I win u lose was the most unconvincing lines and they looked absolutely stupid saying those.The movie was more boring than a bollywood movie. In Bollywood the villains would at least be watching some dance (mujra) before being killed by the hero giving at least 5 mins of visual pleasure to audiences. Altogether a desperately boring movie. I regret wasting money on this.There was a Salman Khan movie "Tumko na Bhool payenge".http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310254/ Similar but better plot and definitely more style quotient. I suggest ppl watch this before "Shooter" which "accurately mishits its targets".

Fly Away Home is a delicate, family-friendly, and well-done movie. Anna Paquin is quite gorgeous with her beauty and talent, and, of course, the geese are the real big stars here. It´s very hard to to laugh a lot with them, mainly in the scenes with small geese... they are very cute. Finally, a very good movie for everyone, and extremely special for Paquin fans.

The comic book movie has seen a number of milestones throughout the past 17 years. In the year 2000 X-Men was released and stunned audiences with creating well- rounded, dynamic characters. It showed that a comic book movie could be more than just campy. 2004's Spider-Man 2 took that even further by creating what I still say is in the top 10 comic book movies ever. It delved deep into the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and it served as a great character movie. The Dark Knight elevated the comic book movie to an entirely new level that may never be surpassed. It took the camp and silliness that usually fills those movies and instead told a serious and gritty crime movie. It essentially was a crime drama that so happened to have Batman. Logan has once again elevated the comic book movie and is another incredible milestone.It's the year 2029 and nearly all mutants have disappeared. A mutant has not been born in 25 years. Wolverine is older now, he's been beaten, he's a bit rougher. He lives in hiding with an even older Charles Xavier who is suffering from seizures, and whose powers are dangerous now that he doesn't have as much control over them anymore. One day they come across a mysterious young girl that needs help. Together they must take her across the country to help her.This is the third movie of a somewhat underwhelming Wolverine trilogy. It's rare after two underwhelming movies a good movie yet alone great movie comes along, but Logan is that rarity. It not only exceeds expectations and is the best of this trilogy, it is the best X-Men movie in the entire franchise.The X-Men movies have always relied heavily on the characters. Part of what separates the X-Men movies from other comic book movies is the incredible characters the franchise contains. The good ones, and they're almost all good, have well rounded, great characters. We already have 9 movies with the character Logan/Wolverine, but Logan develops the character even more. It's evident that he's seen a lot of terrible things in his life. He's at the end. Enter Lauren and things start to change for him. This is the best character piece for any comic book character.The performances are all around great. This is the best Hugh Jackman has ever been. He's really giving it his all. You see it in his face and in his body language. This is a character he loves and he wants to do it right one last time. Patrick Stewart gives, what I think, is a nomination worthy performance. I know it's early, but I hope his name is getting thrown around come Oscar season. He is that good. The movie requires a lot from him and he gives it all. Dafne Keen who plays the little girl is also very good in the movie. She has to perform between two giant screen presences in Jackman and Stewart and she still manages to nearly match their screen presence. The movie requires a lot from her both emotionally and physically. She might be my favourite part of the movie. She is so good and so convincing in the movie. It's not a cringy child performance. You believe every second of her performance. She even steals a few scenes from Hugh Jackman, and that's saying something. The performances are all top notch.There is a very good pace to the movie. It never drags and it always seems to be progressing to something. Each scene builds to the emotional and incredible finale. The last 20 minutes of this movie are absolutely thrilling. There is one incredible long take of Wolverine tearing through the forest on the attack. It's amazing.What elevates this movie though is the choices it makes throughout. There are a lot of bold choices the movie makes that 5 years ago would have probably not worked. I don't think audiences were ready at the time. Now that we are well into the slew of the comic book movie genre, I think audiences are ready for some of the choices it makes. Other comic book movies lately have attempted at doing some of these choices, but have used under developed, poor characters, or have back tracked right at the end almost as if to say, "just kidding!" Here they make great decisions that I think will push the genre to a whole new level that will cause people to say, "hey they did it in Logan, why not in this movie now?" To me, that shows an evolution.Just like The Dark Knight was a gritty crime thriller that happened to also be a Batman movie, Logan is a character drama that happens to be a X-Men/Wolverine movie. This is, in my opinion, the best comic book movie since The Dark Knight. It's emotional, thrilling, contains great acting, and it makes very bold decisions. It's one of the best movies of the year. Do yourself a favour and watch this movie.Just remember, it is very brutal.

Why do filmmakers take such care to reproduce locations and costumes and then completely distort the truth? So many things are incorrect in this movie. This is such a pity because the real story of Elizabeth's rise to power is much more compelling. Make no mistake, Elizabeth understood realpolitik from childhood, she did not have to learn on the job. Sometimes it is more stupid than inaccurate. There is no way English courtiers would argue with their monarch in front of the French Ambassador. I would be prepared to forgive some of this, if the movie were not so long and confused but after two hours I really was not sure when it would end. The main saving grace is the performance of Geoffrey Rush as the scheming Walsingham.Read a history book instead.

Imagine yourself on the eve of your first day of high school. If you'd prefer not to, I get it, believe me. What if you'd just been released from the hospital? Do you really think you could rebound from that?Charlie (played by Logan Lerman), is a quiet, introspective teenager who has recently suffered a setback, the full nature of which we're not informed of, and is about to start his freshman year of high school. The only friend he makes on his first day is his English teacher, Bill Anderson (played by Paul Rudd). Rather than worry his parents, (played by Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh) Charlie gives the typical, one-syllable description of his first day of high school. Time passes and Charlie becomes friends with step-siblings Sam and Patrick. Sam (played by former Harry Potter actress Emma Watson) is an outgoing senior dating a college guy and her step-brother Patrick (played by Ezra Miller) is a flamboyant underachiever with a great sense of humor. They attend a football game together and follow that with a visit to a diner before driving Charlie home. The next function they attend as a group is a party where Charlie, unknowingly, ingests a pot brownie. It is during this moment of drug-fueled confidence that Charlie reveals to Sam the fact that he lost a friend to suicide one year ago. After quietly relaying that fact to Patrick, he and Sam both decide then and there that Charlie should become a full-fledged member of their group. Moments later, Charlie bears witness to a romantic encounter between Patrick and his closeted boyfriend, star football player Brad (played by Johnny Simmons). They leave the party, go for a drive, and hear a song that inspires Sam to stand in the bed of the pickup truck and stretch out her arms as they drive through a tunnel. This is when Charlie first develops romantic feelings for Sam which she is completely unaware of. There's a lot to like about this film. Miller and Watson's characters are both very endearing and their decision to adopt fellow outcast Charlie is a moment that brings hope for the character and life in general. There are elements I believe the film could do without. Examples include the one-sided relationship between two of the characters and the references to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which never resonated with me the way it seems to with others. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it greatly and encourage others to see it at their earliest possible convenience.

Its a good film. Not very original as I felt I was watching a new version of "Kick-Ass" but it had some really great aspects. The action scenes were wonderfully put in scene. The story approach is indeed like John Hughes would have shot a super hero film which worked perfectly for me in regards of a "Spider-Man" film because this was something I missed about all the previous films - the coming of age factor. Tom Holland was perfectly cast. There is no doubt. He IS Peter Parker and he IS Spider-Man with the right among of youth naivety. Great performance and absolutely convincing. Also the choice of Michael Keaton as Vutlure was not only a pitch perfect ironic casting choice but also the absolute right one because he took that role really seriously and delivered a wonderful performance. Really menacing in many aspects and it was role you could have easily overacted. The weakest point of the cast for me was Laura Harrier who wasn't particularly bad but just very boring. Marisa Tomei was a bit wasted and it was a positive surprise that they really kept Robert Downey Jr's appearance short - don't get me wrong I love him and his Tony Stark but he left to spotlight to Holland and Spider-Man which was the right thing after "Captain America: Civil War" felt more like an Iron Man film than a "Captain America" film. Why Gwyneth Paltrow tho received such a high billing for her cameo will ever be a huge mystery to me, same goes to Zendaya who had more like a side kick part, but at least she was fun. Really loved Jon Favreau and good to see Danny Glover. The soundtrack worked perfectly and the screenplay had some fun dialogues and nice surprises. Great entertainment

This movie could have been good. Damn good. The book is incredibly well loved: All of my friends have been freaking out over it, so i decided to give it a whirl. This movie has a bunch of kernels of good ideas. Ender's conflict between pacifism and militarism, his siblings representing the downfalls of either extreme, genocide as a means to reach peace, when is it right to exploit a child?... All great discussions for a long movie, or ideally, a series of movies or 2 season TV show. As it stands, trying to cram all of this into a 2 hour movie cripples it. At one point, a man says "I will never salute you".. .and ten minutes later he salutes Ender... but why? As far as I could tell, all Asa Butterfield did in those 10 minutes was win at laser tag. Literally. This type of sped up character development is prevalent throughout the movie. There is a plot twist towards the end, and I was just as surprised at the characters. The implications of children in was and the morality of genocide is explored well enough. But again, i think those ideas would have benefited from being explored over a couple of seasons of a TV show to give you time to attach to characters. Again, with the pace of this movie, you're whipped from one place to the next so quickly you don't have time to care, with rare exception On the plus side I love the visual style of this movie. It's gorgeous to look at. If you read and enjoyed the books, you'll probably get a kick out of it like everyone else I know. But as someone who doesn't know these characters, I felt like this movie was too much, too fast.

First the positive: Maleficent the character happens to wear the same make up as the superstar celebrity Angelina Jolie does in real life.Now my problems with this movie and the Hollywood studios mentality in general:Why do all movies nowadays have to be so violent, cynical, and have post ironic twists to change up the classic stories they are asking us to PAY TO SEE AGAIN due to nostalgia? Just make a PG13 or R rated film for adults if you want to make these emo-dark violent kids movies.The distracting discount Michael Bay King AKA Sharlto Copley (who is actually a great actor in most films) is not even sleep walking or phoning in this movie, he acts as if he does not even remember how to act or that a camera is rolling and that he is being paid MILLIONS of dollars to do the simple task of reciting words written on a page for him, which is his profession. He is terrible and it is offensive how terrible his performance is knowing that he CAN in fact act, so this recent trend of talented celebrities *AHEM, BRUCE WILLIS...HARRISON FORD...ANTHONY HOPKINS...DE NIRO...PACINO ETC -- Need to either retire with their gobs of money and accomplishments or start doing what they are paid very well to do and ACT for jebus sake.Where did the CGI budget go? This looks worse than a SCI FI Channel show. It looks worse than the BIBLE series on History Channel, and at least that used bad CGI only for establishing shots. The intro to this film looks like a failed PIXAR studios test short from the 1980s or something...why are they charging us 10 dollars to see something they cannot afford to produce better than an old episode of Flash Gordan? Insult to injury.And this is PG and people across the globe are going to think it is child friendly. Well..not really. Is child abuse funny? Women getting smacked around by men? Battles and men on fire? A man being killed by a long fall to his death? A man asking other soldiers to bring him a woman's head? Yeah...classic Disney stories for the children.A random afterthought love interest who of course does not truly love sleeping beauty since he exchanged only, hmmm, FIVE LINES OF Cliché DIALOGUE WITH HER>>> Resulting in true love being only from adopted mommy Angelina kissing her forehead. WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE? Is this some twist of an already bizarre message? I will not even get into the absurd villain and his ridiculously inconsistent behavior which is a huge plot hole...hell I am sick of even talking about this garbage.SO MAKE UP YOUR MIND Hollywood. Is every movie dark or is it happy? Does it always either have to be Dark Knight Dark or Iron Man Irony? Can we just watch something that is not cynical or worst of all treating the audience like idiots. The real idiots are the studios and writers thinking this garbage is worth even a DVD rental. No more of this nonsense is sponsored by my wallet anymore. One good thing from seeing this film..

"The serum amplifies everything inside, so good becomes great; bad becomes worse. This is why you were chosen. Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows compassion."Captain America: The First Avenger is the superhero origin of Steve Rodgers' transformation into Captain America. The movie is set in the 1940's during World War II and Steve Rodgers has the desire to fight overseas just like the rest of the men in the United States. There is one problem though, he is a 90-pound weakling who doesn't look like a soldier, yet he has the heart of one. Director Joe Johnston's Captain America: The First Avenger is a stripped-down superhero movie that focuses on character development rather than superpowers. The script for the movie lets the lead characters take center screen. The plot not only focuses on Rodgers' transformation, but also revolves around the conflict between Captain America and the villain Red Skull. A common quality that Red Skull and Captain possess is the serum that they were both injected with, yet they decided to use the strength they were given in different ways. Captain America could be symbolized as a young, developing America, while Red Skull portrays a similar character to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Chris Evans gives a believable and realistic portrayal of a persistent and gutsy Steve Rodgers. He walks, talks, and fights like a soldier. The emotional depth of the character is seen when Rodgers decides to risk himself in order to save others. His depiction of the underdog that evolves into a superhero is worth rooting for. On the other hand, Hugo Weaving gives a strong performance as Red Skull. The character viciously manipulates his followers' thoughts in his conquest to take over the world by speaking down to them as if he is a god. By emphasizing the last word in a phrase and then taking a dramatic pause, Weaving is able to get into the heads of the audience through his diction and annunciation. This creates a confrontational relationship between the hero and the villain. For fans of traditional superhero movies, this movie may not fit the standards because it doesn't contain common elements associated with this genre. The character of Rodgers is developed in order to focus on him rather than relying on a suit like Iron Man, the money that Batman has or the mutations that X-Men possess. Rodgers doesn't need all of the flash and gadgets that other superheroes of our era have because he is innately a hero. He doesn't have much of an advantage over others, but is able to pursue his dream in an unconventional way, which isn't anything like the superhero movies the audience is used to today. He puts himself out there even though he has many weaknesses. It makes the viewer think about what the ordinary person can do with the abilities that they possess to help out others.

I hate only lies. And the reason I'm not a Christian is that I've read the Bible carefully. It says that the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus took over the church after the crucifixion and converted followers of Jesus into Pharisees. The only Gospel saying Jesus called himself Christ is John's, and Matthew's and Mark's say that Jesus told John he didn't understand what Jesus tried to teach. The Pharisees were a Judaic sect that interpreted Judaic prophesies that a descendant of David's would resurrect the kingdom of Judah to mean that he would resurrect people. The origin of the word "christ" is a Greek word meaning anointed as one anoints kings while the origin of the word "messiah" is a Hebrew word meaning the same. Saul of Tarsus used the word "Christ" to preach the notion of a new king of the Jews beyond Jerusalem through Greece to Rome. And he used the example of Jesus' humility to propagandize people into bowing to the church he founded. And Jesuits have extended that hypocrisy all over earth. Buddhists believe that eternal life is simple truth. They believe all differences are illusion. HITRT

Recently watched these movie on DVD & not disappointed at all. Just cursing myself , why I didn't watch it on Big Screen ? How Could I missed it? These is the story of Sardar Khan & his sons, their revenge. These movie is made into two parts & both the parts are equally good but still I would like to give extra marks to second part because of one actor Navazuddin Siddique, What an actor these guy is!These story revolves around small village in Bihar name Wassypur where main business of people is to work in coal mines or do coal trading. The first part start with gunfire in the house where in the background the music of famous tele serial 'kyoki Sas bhi kabhi bahu thi' is playing, Which is totally unique for any bollywood movie. Then starts the story of Sardar Khan in the flashback. This role is very well played by Manoj bajpai, one of the jewel in bollywood. How Sardar khan become the local don from ordinary coal worker. His tussle with Tigamnsu Dhulia to take the charge of local town. His relation with his wife then his affair with another girl who later become his second wife. These all stories of him captured well by director. the language used in the movie is very authentic which speaks locally in the area of wassypur. Another interesting part in the movie is love story between of Nawazuddin & Huma Qureshi which I loved the most. you should watch the scene where Huma Qureshi goes to meet him in jail. All the character in the movie is so important that you can't think any others actors in that roles. To name a few are Rajkumar Rao, Richa Chadda, Tigmanshu Dhulia, Reema Sen, Vineetkumar Singh.Anurag Kashyap is one of my favorite director he either makes a best movie or worst movie so these is one of the best movie. Don't miss it...

This is why people watch movies. To escape from everyday life and sit completely absorbed in someone else's story. And what a wonderful story it is. On the outside it looks to be a sap of movie, the kind of movie that shamelessly wants to jerk some tears. But it bold enough to break free from the prison of other formula films. The cliches are all there and in familiar places but on a higher level and they are warm and welcome. This is the kind of movie that I will finish watching and feel the need to rewind it and play it again. This is truly one for the ages.

Granted, this is supposed to be an action film based on a range of toys. On that level I suppose it delivers the goods. However, for a budget of some $145 million, it shouldn't have been the be all and end all. There ought to have been at least some semblance of plot to go with it.In the right place and well-executed, action sequences are no bad thing, but by the final act of this film I was yawning. The relentless onslaught of one battle after another is simply mind-numbing. The CG Transformers, while realised proficiently, are nothing new: there's a car ad by Citroen that's been running in the UK for ages now, which features a transforming/dancing/skating car. It was easily on a par with anything this film had to offer, so there was hardly a 'Wow!' factor.Michael Bay seems content with his limitations as a maker of overblown, plot-lite action spectaculars. If he wishes to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, he needs to work out what elicits genuine emotion from an audience, and start substituting some story for his stunts.

Twins journey to the Middle East to discover their family history, and fulfill their mother's last wishes.Many of us, sooner or later, get interested in our family history and want to know our roots. Do we have a famous ancestor, or do we have connections to an Indian tribe, or maybe something else completely unexpected. Often, the journey is fascinating and can spark a real interest in history and a connection to our fellow man.Sometimes the journey is not so good. Many of us have Middle Eastern blood in us somewhere. Go back a hundred generations and we can trace our path just about anywhere. And the Middle East, as a whole, is a great place... but this film shows what can happen if the path goes askew.

Life of Pi is one of the most marvelous theater experiences I've had all year. Its Oscar for art direction and cinematography should already be locked in. It's a film of incorruptible beauty and deeply satisfying drama which squeezes so much power and emotion out of its audience that they leave feeling riveted at the same time drained. You can bet the film's main character feels the exact same way.Our main character is an adult named Piscine Molitor, who goes by the name "Pi Patel," and we meet him as an adult (played by Irrfan Khan) who begins telling his long life-story to a writer planning to adapt it (Rafe Spall). It's a story that tested him as a person in every possible way, and it all goes back to when his parents made the decision to move from India to Canada, and because Pi's father was a zookeeper, take many animals such as orangutans, zebras, goats, and tigers with them on an enormous ship across the Pacific Ocean. Before this move, Pi was an optimistic soul, who ventured out as a young boy beyond his comfort zone in his Hindu religion to seek out other walks of faith, specifically Christianity and Islam, which he began following all at once.During the move, a wild, violent storm hits the ocean, flooding the ship and sending Pi, a zebra with a broken leg, a hyena, an orangutan, and a tiger named "Richard Parker" on a lifeboat, leaving behind the several other animals and Pi's entirely family. This whole sequence, which lasts around five minutes, feels like the entire movie The Perfect Storm shortened from its original two-hour length, only it emphasizes the emotional elements. This is one of the saddest scenes of the year, as we see a teenage Pi (now played by Suraj Sharma) desperately hold onto the lifeboat for dear-life, while being washed away from his mother, father, and siblings and there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. Between you and I, reader, this is one of the most emotionally upsetting scenes (this and the ending of the film) I've ever sat through in a theater.Now, Pi is stranded in the middle of the Pacific, with an open sky, four different animals, until they are picked off with only the tiger remaining, and his own will to live. The remainder of the film forgoes the back-and-forth narrative between adult Pi telling the story to the writer, but remains focused on his own recollection of events on that lifeboat and the acts of bravery he committed to keep him and the tiger alive. While Pi and Richard Parker are sharing the boat, that does not mean they get along. Writer David Magee makes no mistake in illustrating that while they are stranded together, Pi is a human boy and Richard Parker is a Bengal tiger. The beauty of this picture is that it never mistakes that the only common traits between these two souls is that they are stranded together and both are mammals.Life of Pi's visuals are astounding. Long shots that hold on the vast emptiness of the Pacific are invigorating because of their wide range of beauty and clarity, sequences of peril and uncertainty are captured through an equally clear, vivid lens, making them all the more real and enthralling, and atmospherically, the picture shows the dangers and the loneliness of the ocean better than any film I have yet to see.Thematically, the picture focuses on predominately on the idea of survival and spirituality, which gratefully helps Pi keep hope and optimism during these gruelingly unforgiving days. One of the most intense and poignant scenes comes when Pi is faced with the task of killing a large fish. He is starving, and becoming skinnier by the day, so he fiercely grabs a fish out of the water and begins hacking at it with a small axe. When the fish is bloody and long dead, he begins to sob tears of joy and sadness; joy because he finally has a decent portion of food, yet sadness in the idea that he has killed a living creature and is about to abandon his vegetarian vow. It's a scene that, once more, clouded my eyes with tears, just like Pi's, of joy and sadness. This is a picture of sheer power and beauty. A film that clearly tests its lead actor, Sharma, who is inhabiting his first main role, and a film that will hopefully go on to live with a reputation of one of cinema's supreme achievements. It must be said that in Ang Lee's twenty year film career that he has tackled almost every genre in the medium and done so with an extraordinary amount of confidence. His directorial efforts too have not been minor additions to the genre, but true game-changers if anything. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a martial arts film filled with depth and delight. Hulk was a superhero movie that added so much weight to its characters and relationships, you'd think Christopher Nolan's modern-day Dark Knight franchise was taking notes from it. And Brokeback Mountain was, for the most part, a lively portrayal of two men who've kept their orientation silent for so long that they begin to embrace it by meeting each other out of the blue. Life of Pi offers more of the same grandiose ideas from the brilliant visionaire and its shocking smoothness in terms of filming, placement, and writing is beyond fabulous and wildly consuming because of its clarity. This is one of the best films of the year, and on-par with the depth and cinematography in Samsara, making this year one of the most beautiful.

Riggs and Murtaugh(Mel Gibson and Danny Glover) return to this time take on Asian triads who are smuggling immigrants (to be used as slaves) in the country, of course our favorite duo take on the triads while Riggs has to deal with fatherhood and Murtaugh has to deal with grandfather-hood with a ridiculous subplot involving his daughter that is too silly to explain. The problem with Lethal Weapon 4 (Which is an improvement over Lethal Weapon 3) is that it is far too comic. Lethal Weapon and (especially) Lethal Weapon 2 had their share of humorous moments, but those were first and foremost action movies. Lethal Weapon 4 with its cast that includes Chris Rock and Joe Pesci, mainly stalls at the comedy sequences that seem forced. That being said the action sequences are very enjoyable and spectacular. Jet Li makes a great villain and there is still enough magic to make this enjoyable for fans of this series. However it's starting to wear thin and it was a wise decision to basically end it here. Still as part 4s go, it could've been worse.* *1/2 Out Of 4-(Pretty good)

Why did they not leave this on the cutting room floor? Garbage in, Garbage out !!! After hearing how bad this movie was from a friend, I decided that I would take the chance and see it anyway. My friends comments were that he had actually seen it twice but, about 3 mins into the second time he thought he would have to start making balloon animals. My comments are that I have not walked out of a theater in my life so I am glad this came on a free channel on Time Warner Cable or I would have walked out on this and asked for my money back.Garbage in, Garbage out !!!EEH

A great step forward from the visionary director of Delicatessen and City of Lost Children, Amelie is the most enjoyable film I've seen in years. Packed with character and incident, this deceptively simple love story shows the magical within the ordinary, with a wealth of great visuals and an endless supply of offbeat humor. I can hardly wait to see it again!

I must say that i haven't seen a crappy film like this one.This film won the Best picture Oscar,are u kidding me??i still remember the day i watched the film n felt that i had wasted 2+ hours of my life on this piece of over-rated stuff.the acting is fine.but,the biggest problem is gotta be the script which tests the patience of the audience.as you watch the movie you expect the directors to throw some light upon what's happening.but,instead what u see is endless confusion.I must say that i haven't seen a crappy film like this one.coming to the plot,if there's anything to be called so,its just inconclusive.the film tortures you with endless boring scenes.the end is the worst to top them all.In short,avoid it at all costs.

Without spoilers: the main consistent criticism of the movie is that it's too long, which I agree with, the first half or so of the movie should be half as long as it is, because it's pretty dry, but the payoff is worth it imho. And I actually found Jesse Eisenberg to be a decent Lex Luthor, he does the eccentric, narcissistic asshole, that Lex Luthor should be, well. If you thought that Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey were good as Luthor, then I think that Eisenberg was on par too. Other than that, the story is decent, there aren't any more plot holes than in other movies, although it's really working hard on setting up the JL movie. Other than that, the rest of the cast is good and it's a really good looking movie.So the tl;dr version is, if you can get through the first half without falling asleep from the dryness, it's a decent superhero flick. Let's hope the directorial staff will get reworked for the future movies in the DCCU though. But if you ask me there were movies as "bad" as this in the MCU too, so I don't really get this uproar from the critics.

Outstanding on every account. Script, acting, locations, directing, you name it. I specially love Martin Freeman's John because although Cumberbatch is my favorite Sherlock as well, this John has something I haven't seen in other Watson's, he is a person in his own right, he is neither outshadowed nor intimidated by Sherlock. Their friendship is of course the best thing about the show, it is very realistic and a wonderful thing to watch as it evolves. "Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend". Albert Camus I have watched each episode at least twice and I am not the only one by far. I think that speaks for itself about its quality. PS: Season 3 premieres January 19!!!!!!

I am no fan of the super-heroes films genre, and 'Watchmen' did not change this. The film tries to build a sophisticated intrigue which gives to several superheroes a past and some dilemmas to deal with (beyond saving the world) in a revisionist version of history where the Vietnam war was won by a super-heroes helped America and Nixon won four consecutive presidential mandates. Actually this alternate history landscape and the beautiful cinematography are the best parts in the film, which otherwise I found to be a pretentious and long nonsense.Now my son points to me that איק graphic novel the film is based upon is one of the best and most known modern literature works of our age and is studied and read even in academical institutes. Maybe, but this still could not make me believe for one fraction of second the view of the latex-costumed heroes dealing with relationship traumas. The level of the cinematographic realization was also uneven. Splendid computerized effects (like when Dr. Manhattan finds himself on Mars) coexist with what looks like bad make-up of the main heroes. Was this intentional? Maybe, but I missed the intention.Oh, yes, one more grouping of sequences I loved - the scenes with the plethora of generals in the situation room surrounding the old venerable president Nixon ready to decide on starting WWIII based on a 54% estimation that the whole Soviet Union will be nuclearly annihilated, while 'only' a few big cities on the US East Coast will be hit in the retaliation. This looked like an homage to 'Dr. Strangelove' and was superb. But not enough.

What a great comedy film this is. I can't remember the last time I laughed so much at a movie!An hilariously inept script, coupled with truly appalling acting (especially Mr Gibson and Mr Ledger) and some quite potty direction make for a surreal and pythonesque experience.SPOILERThere is one scene where all these factors come together gloriously and in the future I firmly believe it will: A: Top the list of every poll as the funniest scene ever committed to celluloid. or B: Be consigned to some dark corner only to see the light of day at secret drama or film school classes in the lesson entitled 'How NOT to do it'!The scene is this. Gabriel (Heath Ledger), distraught at the death of his new bride (and several other annoyingly self-righteous do-gooders) rides off with some pals to confront and destroy the evil Colonel Tavington (Jason Isaacs in an excellently evil performance - if this was X-Men). What follows is a lot of slow-motion killing, a 'don't go over there you fool, he's not really dead!' segment, a gasping for breath, twitching death scene in the arms of a loved one, and the most hilarious reaction acting from Gibson. He spends a couple of minutes trying to look lost in grief and ends up looking like he's chewing a wasp. Dreadful!As for the rest of the film, nothing really comes close to this scene, although watching Mel fight off the entire British army with only his sideburns and an American flag for assistance is pretty damn funny.All other characters are woefully underwritten and act as window-dressing only, and that's a shame. The token slave would have made an interesting sub-plot, but he ends up just that, a token slave, and the film makers lack the conviction to tell us anything about him at all.I suppose a lot of people will expect this movie to be a true and honest portrayal of an important part of american history. If they don't come out of the theatre feeling let down and disappointed I would be amazed.On the other hand, they might just laugh their 'nads off!

Worst film I have seen in years, it was £3 and not worth that. It's tedious, mind numbingly obvious, shallow and boring. Small characters, no development, no resolution, nothing to be learned from this waste of time.For a very similar film with some substance I would recommend Inception. It's marginally less tedious.This film has clearly received a high rating as its focused almost entirely on a single character as per films such as gran Torino, which apparently makes a film clever.Gladly I took it back and replaced it, because I fancied a drive, otherwise it would have been snapped and binned, rubbish.

Pixar has, in my opinion, delivered the finest computer animated films to date. However, Pixar's three entries before this film ("Cars," "Ratatoille," and "Wall-E", though most people will disagree with me on the last one) were, I feel, lesser entries. The last three did not have the overall appeal value that the previous films ("Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," etc) had. "Up" is a pleasant surprise in nearly every way. What a fantastic concept this film has, featuring a house floated away by a massive amount of small helium-filled balloons (I mean, who doesn't think it would be neat to have their house fly?) Of course, a great concept deserves an equally well-written plot and screenplay, and this film pulls off both of those. The film involves Carl, an old man trying to keep his late wife's dream alive by going to Paradise Falls to prove that their childhood hero, explorer Charles Muntz, was not lying when he said he had traveled there. Along the way, he picks up a young boy scout and a few animals to continue the journey together. This film features who is probably the all-time greatest movie dog character, Dug, a dog who says just what he thinks due to his automated voice collar. What a brilliant concept, rather than the overused one involving animals talking with moving lips. There's too much to share about this film in one review, but the most important thing to say is that I recommend it. It's visually stunning and full of laughs, excitement, and real emotion, with characters we learn to care about. If you're one of the few people who hasn't seen it yet, now's the time, while it's still in theaters.***1/2 out of ****

Okay, I'll admit, I read the book in fifth grade a few years ago and saw the old version of the movie. Didn't like the old version but loved the book. When I saw previews of this version, I immediately dismissed it as a stereotypical kids' movie, with too many special effects that would stray it from the book. But my sixteen-year-old cousin, my grandmother, and my mother got me to go see it anyway in the Dollar Movie yesterday. All I can say is....THIS MOVIE WAS AMAZING. It was funny and dramatic at the same time and even people who'd seen it before were crying at all the right times. My mother was in tears throughout the entire last third of the movie! I encourage readers to buy this on DVD. It's definitely worth it. And Bailee Madison is totally adorable!

I first saw this film in fifth grade and thought it was fantastic. I mean, come on, it had action, fantasy, romance, and comedy all in one! And even watching the movie now, the only thing that doesn't hold up as well are the special effects in the film, notably the R.O.U.S., the fires in the fire swamp, and the obvious body doubles here and there.But as for the rest of the film:The acting isn't Oscar-worthy, but it definitely isn't unmemorable. The characters are well-beloved (my favorites being Miracle Max and Valerie, the bishop, and Fezzik), and the actors were well-cast in their roles and also performed quite well. If you haven't read the book (by William Goldman) that this was adapted from, then read it. The movie is very similar to the book. In fact a lot of quotes in the movie are direct (or similar) to quite a few quotes in the book. Although there are very few differences, the book is just as exciting and witty as the movie.The costumes, makeup, and hairstyling were pretty good for a 1987 film. Props for Carol Kane and Billy Crystal's makeup and Buttercup's beautiful wedding dress.And props for Mark Knopler's music score as well. Aside from the action music, most of the score is sweet, poignant, and beautiful, especially the main theme. I'm glad that "Storybook Love" was up for an Oscar nomination for Best Original Song because I would have selected it as one of the best that year as well.Overall, I know millions of people have seen this film (which makes it kind of a "cult film"), but if you haven't seen it, you definitely should. Great casting, memorable characters, a wonderful storyline, great music, and lots of comedy, fantasy, action, and romance all in one. Who could ask for more? I can easily see why so many people adore this movie. It really is a treasure.My Personal Oscar Picks for this movie:Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Song ("Storybook Love"), and possibly Best Original Score

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a huge financial success, and this one was easily the best. The battle sequences were better done than the ones in the previous two films, the characters were shown to have changed a lot since their first appearances in the Fellowship of the Ring, and it was generally a flawless film. Though it might take up half your day just watching it, I still recommend to people who haven't seen it that they watch this epic, record-breaking, breathtaking close to the Lord of the Rings trilogy! This film deserves all the Oscars it won, its place and rating on the IMDb and all the respect that it won its makers. A film to see before you die. 10/10

Before I saw this movie when it came out in theaters, I only knew who Jason Segel was from his small part in Knocked Up as one of Seth Rogen's buddies. Segel wrote the screenplay for this movie and stars as Peter Bretter, a musician for a TV show that stars his girlfriend Sarah Marshall (played by Kristen Bell). It starts out with Peter feeling good about himself knowing that he has a stable job and a hot girlfriend. All that changes when Sarah shows up at Peter's apartment to break up with him. This has Peter upset for days. His step-brother (Bill Hader) suggests that he takes a trip. Peter goes to Hawaii to try and get over his breakup, only to find out that Sarah is in Hawaii too. Now Peter really can't get over his breakup and is even more upset when he finds out that Sarah is dating and sleeping with (along with having been sleeping with) British singer Aldous Snow (played hilariously by Russell Brand).Segel does a great job in his first leading role. Bell shows what she can handle playing an unlikeable character. Brand is flat out funny and I see a long career ahead of him. Mila Kunis does a great job playing a sweet hotel receptionist who Peter starts to have a thing for. There are also funny cameos by Frat Pack actors Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill.Segel does a great job at being a screenwriter and director Nicholas Stoller does some good work at translation Segel's script to the screen. I look forward to seeing what else both Segel and Stoller can do.

I recently found out that plans are underway to remake Drop Dead Fred, which I'm really dreading. You can put as much CGI and cell phone usage in a remake as you want, modernizing it doesn't make something good. To me the original will always be better, hands-down.What's sad about Drop Dead Fred is that the girl in it has a very controlling mother who wants her daughter, above all else, to be "a normal" so that she can keep her own high reputation. Her husband loves Elizabeth, or Lizzie, and encourages her to use her imagination. When Lizzie invents an imaginary friend, Drop Dead Fred, a mischievous man with bright orange hair and a British accent, her mom is furious. She believes her child may need psychiatric care and medication for having a pretend friend, and after separating Lizzie from her beloved friend her husband becomes frustrated and leaves.As Lizzie grows up grounded in reality, it isn't all her mom cracked it up to be. Lizzie is forced to move back in with her mom and ends up reuniting with Drop Dead Fred, much to her mom's horror. She immediately wants Lizzie put on a medication that will kill off Drop Dead Fred, without her daughter's consent, but somehow Drop Dead Fred survives.Believe me, keeping an imaginary friend a secret as an adult isn't easy by any means. It's considered normal when you're six but as you get to be a teenager, and then an adult, it's not just "cute" to adults, it's considered weird, wrong and insane. This movie terrified me when I first saw it; I was fifteen and knew very little about medication, and honestly believed that the fictional "normal pills" in the movie really existed. What I discovered when I got older, equally disturbing, is that many medications used to treat supposed and real mental illnesses are often not recommended for or tested with children and teens, but they are still prescribed in Canada.The acting in this movie is amazing, especially from Phoebe Cates, who also stared as Kate in the 1980's Christmas horror classic Gremlins. Rick Mayall and Ashley Peldon were also really great in their roles. The soundtrack was pretty good and the story certainly is original, with slight similarities to the books Syd the Imaginary Friend by Alice Dawn and Magic by William Goldman.The strained relationship between Lizzie and her snotty mom is incredibly depressing to watch. There are tons of "modern moms" out there who say that raising a child with a solid plan, grounded in reality from the day they're born, is the best way. They don't want their children to have an imagination at all. To take away something like that from a child's life is not only harmful, but it stops them from leading their own unique life. And imaginary friends, at least in my opinion, are not dangerous or unhealthy for children or adults to have, so long as they aren't a malevolent voice whispering to harm others or whispering suicidal thoughts. Anyone can have an imaginary friend and lead a productive life as long as they still have some sense of what's imaginary and what's real. Some imaginary friends might be a child's only support in times of abuse, divorce, tragedy, etc. The same goes for adults.I really hope this wonderful film isn't dragged into the remake heap of today's generation. It does have mild crude humor and bad language, but in moderation. Drop Dead Fred is one of the most original films out there and doesn't need a remake to be timeless, I'd recommend it any day over a remake.

An unfunny film in unfunny times.Sasha Baron Cohen is largely a has-been in Europe where his scriptwriters put him through his first, genuinely snappy shows that brought together a lot of influences from lampooning youth culture to spoofs of veteran shows like Benny Hill.The Borat character was initially used to mock snotty Oxbridge students, foaming-at-the-mouth foxhunting protesters, or just breaking the routines of other performative artists. The point of the skit was that people would treat Borat with respect or courtesy despite his grotesque missteps, so he could go on childish rampages like farting in a meditation group.It was also widely regarded as the weakest part of the show, relegated to the late or ending segments. After a short but flamboyant run the initial "Da Ali G show" had lost its special touch, and US cable seems like the natural place to continue the job for a few years in these cases.And now, there's an ethnic comedy movie where a Jew, that means from one of the traditionally most tightly sealed-off communities in history, tries to explain something about our world to Americans, one of the youngest and most self-centered nations on this planet. The method used beyond the traditional 'playing dumb and childish' routine from Cohen again seems to be gratuitous offense and over-the-top insensitivity, but somehow it isn't funny at all anymore.There's a genuine lack of anything like wit or surprise, and he probably writes his own material without much input from a real team. Taking an act 'over the top' is a risky thing and similar results can be observed in many rushed Hong Kong comedies where the fun just doesn't happen despite or because of technically correct execution of 'funny'.One reason may be that real comedy still comes as interaction between several level players, whereas this film presents a nearly autistic performance that leaves the viewer rooting for the genuinely clueless and debased victims. Going at it or chutzpah is a valuable thing, but if you don't know when to stop you're just a crazy horse.

The love story in this movie and the depths Gatsby goes to in order to be with the woman he loves and who loves him reminds one of what it means to live. Not just to be alive but to really live. As Gatsby follows the pursuit of one of the things that really makes us human (the ability to love and fall deeply in love), he has to go against the rules set out by humanity (pursuing a married woman) which highlights a beautiful yet saddening truth of the institution of marriage, and an even more beautiful and saddening truth about being in love. This movie reminds me that people tend to remember the bad instead of the good in people and their actions, bringing up an important issue that if only people understood and "walked a mile" in Gatsby's shoes, they would understand where he is coming from and perhaps would follow a similar path. However, because of manipulation and media, not all the facts are disclosed, nor are they disclosed honestly, and typically the public eats it all up, as they do in this movie. In this case, the only person who knew the truth beyond the parties involved was Nick, and without his account of the inside scoop, it is possible that we would have pegged Gatsby as more of an antagonist than a protagonist.Though the movie portrays elegant, rich, and boisterous parties with beautiful people, cars, and homes (all which made for great movie aesthetics), it reminds me of the saddening truth that these painfully heartbreaking situations happen in real life and affect real people, even if they are not so dramatized.

This was shown here in the Philippines on May 25 and I must say that this movie is really amazing. I like what Duncan Jones and Blizzard did and I hope that there will be more sequels to this movie. Hoping that more Warcraft characters will be added in the future. The Computer Graphic effects are amazing. I should say that they CG has almost the same quality with Avatar. All actors are good. One downside of this movie would be for the audience who doesn't have any idea about the Warcraft Lore. It would be hard for them to understand as the movie has a very fast pacing of story. I would recommend this movie and hoping for a sequel.

I really enjoyed this film being that it took an old legend and made an interesting, newer version of it that keeps you interested from beginning to end. As far as action films go, it is a terrific film that really speaks to the senses with beautiful fight sequences and imagery. If you enjoy a good battle scene this is definitely a good film for you, being that there is no shortage of them.The film also depicts a good sense of brotherhood amongst everyone, and sort of how people of great differences can come together in the face of opposition to accomplish things. Although the content of the story is not very profound and that I did not fight the acting particularly provocative or good, I still felt as if it was a very good action film and was definitely worth watching. If you are in the mood for medieval battle scenes, you cannot go wrong with this movie.

Nothing is what it seems, says the tagline for this movie. So, lets look at that for a moment. Some call this movie a film noir for the nineties, and with good reason. It's a story without any good guys, set in a 1950's world where crime and corruption are a way of life, with plenty of night scenes and scenes in the rain, so, aside from the fact that it's in color, it *looks* like a film noir.But, this movie doesn't have a femme fatale. Oh, it has a pretender for that title, but somewhere about two thirds of the way through this movie, Lynn Bracken, gorgeous and worldly but jaded hooker, played wonderfully by Kim Basinger, says this: Lynn Bracken: I see Bud because I want to. I see Bud because he can't hide the good inside of him. I see Bud because he treats me like Lynn Bracken and not some Veronica Lake look-alike who *bleep* for money.No woman who sees the good inside a man can be a femme fatale, because a femme fatale never sees any good inside a man; they're only interested in the bad. So, forget this movie as a modern day film noir. It seems like one, but it is not what it seems.Nor is anything else in this movie what it seems. It's impossible to say more without spoiler warnings, because no matter what I say, the very act of talking about this movie gives away some of its surprises. But, let me say just a word about each of the characters.Lynn Bracken - we first see her as a high class, uncaring whore made to look like Veronica Lake, but by movie's end, she'll morph into someone we never expect.Bud White - we first see him as a brutal, sadistic, amoral cop, whose idea of justice is planting or faking evidence to insure the guilty are punished.Captain Dudley Smith - who says all the right things, and does all the wrong ones. Or is it the other way around? Ed Exley - smarmy, weaselly, facile, disingenuous cop on the make, trying to dig out from the legacy of his policeman father, killed in the line of duty. In a world of disgusting, unlikable people, I disliked him the most.Jack Vincennes - if Bud White is this movie's Mark Fuhrman, then Jack Vincennes is its Joseph Wambaugh: celebrity cop, consultant on a police television show that looks suspiciously like Dragnet, flashy dresser, who pays for his clothes and his extravagant lifestyle with money received from bribes.As the movie unfolds, each of the three cops is working on a particular case that is personally important. To solve that case, each of the three must help the others solve theirs in exchange for the support of the other two. In the end, and I hope I'm not spoiling too much by saying this, they learn as do we that they were all working on the same case.This is masterful storytelling, each plot-point slowly and inexorably linked to the others to form a cohesive, sordid world of corruption, manipulation, betrayal, graft and murder. It is one of the best movies I've ever seen, and Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, James Cromwell and Kim Basinger give the performances of their careers. A solid 9 out of 10.

'Wild Things' is a classic. It deserves its top marks. Of course, in the history of cinema it probably won't be talked about in the same terms as other 'classics,' such as The Godfather and Empire Strikes Back. 'Wild Things' is a different type of film for a different type of audience.It's a twisty-turny thriller where you can't really say too much about the plot without giving away important information that is best left kept secret until you actually watch it. Basically, it involves plenty of glamorous (and murderous!) back-stabbing, by beautiful people in beautiful locations. If you've watched the trailer (and I suggest you don't, seeing as that too gives away more than you really need to know) then you'll see that there's a strong 'sexual element' to it. Therefore, critics can easily dismiss the film as just some (slightly classier) p0rn and leave it at that.Yes, sex is an important part of 'Wild Things,' but, like I say, it's so much more than that. Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon, Neve Campbell are all great, but, for me, the stand-out performances come from Denise Richards and Bill Murray. Murray normally turns in an excellent performance in whatever he does, so you'll probably expect it from him. However, since Wild Things, Denise Richards has taken more than her fair share of criticism concerning her acting abilities. I can tell you though she shines here (and I'm not just talking 'visually!') and even gets what I would say is the best line of the film – something about 'taking the car,' but you'll have to watch the film to see the context she uses it in.If you're not offended by plenty of sex in a film and you like your films with more plot twists in than a filmic corkscrew, then give Wild Things a go. Just be sure to sit through the credits for added scenes which explain a lot of what's happened (when I first saw this in the cinema, I noticed that some people actually left the moment the screen went black – they really missed out!). Also, don't watch the sequels – I mean it – just don't. They're basically the same film, only done worse and if you've seen the original you'll have seen it much better.

What We Do in the Shadows is a comedy/horror focusing mainly on a group of vampires living together in modern New Zealand. There are also some other creatures briefly included like werewolves and zombies.The idea is unique and there are definitely some funny moments. For example the vampires are learning about the internet and social media. Vladislav is taught how to poke people on Facebook, "Yes do it, let's poke her"! There's another scene where they have a house meeting to discuss chores and cleanliness. Viago comments on how he puts down towels and newspaper when killing his victims to not ruin the furniture. He expects the others to do the same.All of the actors have really done a great job getting into character; especially Taika Waititi as Viago and Jermaine Clement as Vladislav.For me the biggest problem with the movie is that there really is not much of a plot. The majority of the film is improvised and it moves from scene to scene without much direction. The characters and scenarios are very well done but it doesn't work for me as a full length movie.

I feel this last addition the the Star Trek legacy has no place among its original scifi counterparts. I feel that what makes a Star Trek film is more than just pointy ears and modernized cell phones and other gadgetry. Star Trek films display a great deal of cultural morality, hard decisions, and intrigue. Nothing new was added, but at the same time this film has distorted the name of Star Trek in order to make it a big seller. I did not pay for my ticket and sit down to see an action packed thriller with more death, life, disaster sequences than the purge or fast and furious 6. I wanted the real deal. I also feel the extra race(s) added on the bridge had little to no history or background and more characters that WEREN'T displayed (Cardassian, Romulan, Ferengi, Borg, Android, Betazoid, Holograms, the Q! etc) should have been. The next film that carries the name, if there is to be another one, must be much better than this to obtain my favor.

This movie was one the best war movies that i saw recently. Has a solid plot don't show the Vietcongs something like a demon but just people that fight for their believes just like the Americans. We were Soldiers has also a great supporting cast and good performances of Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot. All right, always that i saw Elliot i think "yes sergeant", this man looks like a sergeant. This is a good movie but has some flaws so i give 7/10.

This is truly the worst movie I have ever sat through. I guess the pedophile was supposed to be our hero, or maybe the drug pusher or the completely dysfunctional wife or maybe the tortured queer or, or (you get the point.) This movie was rated a 9.0 and I expected to really enjoy it. I was instead appalled. This can't possible be the way we see ourselves. Truly an insulting movie.

This is a fun action movie that has a few dark moments,good stunts and good acting for what it is.Good story line and two of my favorite action "b" actors,it's a win/win for viewers.Bottom line...if you like action and violence in your movies,then this ones pretty good.

I love Patrick Dempsey so I wanted this movie to be great. It just wasn't. The beginning was awkwardly silly (intentionally?) - the animated portion could have used better animation technology. The animation was totally yesterday. If it was supposed to feel like the old Cinderella , it did, but I want sophisticated animation not old flat animation. I felt no chemistry between Giselle & Dempsey and the writing lacked any decent dialogue. I read that some people laughed through the whole thing...at what? I read that there was adult humor...not really. Characters were dull, the story lines undeveloped (the relationship between the queen and her servant, what happened to Dempsey's ex? why did they introduce a gay guy at the apt. door?...) Underwhelming & disappointing.

The fact that 75-year-old Woody Allen opens his latest film with a soothing yet slightly over-indulgent montage of countless Parisian places seems to have led many to believe that he is besotted by this famous city, but they are forgetting that a film director may often just be presenting a viewpoint, may not necessarily share it themselves. In this case, it is likely that this deep passion we see does not belong to Woody Allen, but his effortlessly lovable protagonist, Gil. Brilliantly brought to life by Owen Wilson, a popular comedic actor who often tags along with Ben Stiller, but has left him behind on this outing, Gil is an unshakable romantic who intends to pursue a career as a novelist, with Paris being his ideal writing station. It seems that the only thing holding him back is the insistence of his whiny, closed-minded fiancé Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her snobby, overbearing liberalist parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimmi Kennedy) to continue churning out formulaic but reliably profitable Hollywood film scripts as he is currently doing. As the four of them are trying to enjoy a decidedly uncomfortable parisian holiday, they have a chance encounter with Inez's overzealous but good-hearted friend Carol (Nina Arianda), and, much to Gil's annoyance, her insufferable know-it-all husband Paul (Michael Sheen, who rises admirably to the challenge of masking his natural likability), after which the women unite the two younger couples as travel mates for the rest of the trip, but the seething friction between the men make it a very awkward arrangement.As you can see, within the first half hour, the foundations have been laid for yet another zany romantic and situation comedy: the antagonistic goody two-shoes jerk; the clumsy and confused protagonist struggling to satisfy the other characters; the tough, hard-to-please parents, the well-meaning bystander; the tight setting that allows almost no escape; everything's there at the ready. Then Gil sensibly decides to withdraw from the unpleasantness and drop the contented façade, an act of ordinary intelligence that is commonplace in the real world but equates to a stroke of genius in the world of oddball comedy. Heavily drunk and a little out of his senses, he decides to take a nice leisurely stroll around the city streets seeking inspiration for his writing. At the stroke of midnight, sitting down in a particular spot, he magically enters his favourite Parisian era: the 1920s. When this occurs, we are just as surprised as he is, the film having so convincingly set itself up to be something very different. It is perhaps the most cunning and well-executed deception since Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960). The audience is completely unsuspecting, and until Gil starts running into people like Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, T.S. Eliot and Scott Fitzgerald. After having such a fabulous night in what he has always thought of as the Golden Age, Gil becomes a regular visitor, returning to the real world each day with more and more quirky discoveries and fresh ideas, sending his loathsome companions into a state of utter bewilderment. This is another point at which the film diverts from the familiar route, where the female spouse continually complains and obsesses over the male protagonists apparent descent into madness and until he eventually comes to his senses and butters her up once more, because keeping their relationship together is paramount, no matter what the holes have to be patched up with. As Inez takes incessant whinging to soaring new heights, Gil makes no effort to appease her and instead finds solace in being with the lovely Adriana (the wonderful Marion Cotillard), an adventurous young soul, who is one of Picasso's numerous gorgeous muses and lovers. The end result of these relationship dynamics is highly interesting and genuinely surprising, so I won't spoil it.It is these surprising elements that Woody Allen has added used rather unpromising ingredients to put together a very smart and enjoyable film that in the end comes to a very insightful conclusion about Gil's nostalgic romanticism: the past will always seem more inviting than the present, regardless of what era the present might be, for it does often take many years for true beauty to be revealed and appreciated, and there will always be a yearning for that blissful innocence and security of the past. This is not just true of time, but also of place, and that is perhaps what may Woody Allen may have been alluding to in the opening sequence, that Paris is perceived as a perfect paradise, but, as shown with a few of those shots, much of it is as mundane and imperfect as any other Western city. These pieces of thematic material also help to lift this film above the ordinary standard, and make good use of its astutely controlled 94-minute running time, producing a very worthwhile comedic fantasy that also co-stars Carla Bruni, Kathy Bates, Léa Seydoux and Adrien Brody.

I like a rip-roaring horror movie as much as the next guy, but this one just didn't do it for me. It certainly felt like it hit all the necessary marks, from nudity and dismemberment to bloody revenge, but at the conclusion, it just felt like eating cotton candy - no real nutritional value, just a sense that I had satisfied some of my prurient appetite without any logical payoff.The movie was slow in getting started and then the sprinted to a singularly boggling ending. I walked out of the theater asking, "What was the point of all that?" And while this is described as horror, it really should be classified as thriller. There was no explanation or clever twist at the end. Just the end. I'm sure that it will attract an enthusiastic audience of young adults, but the evisceration by the critics will stem any hopes of huge box office.If your expectations are low enough, and your tastes in gore sufficiently robust, then you are in for a good time. Otherwise, skip this and see a classic Hitchcock film. You'll feel better about yourself.

Superb acting and dialogue paint this moving tale of hope and friendship. With beautiful cinematography, complex characters, and witty yet poetic dialogue, the Shawshank Redemption is movie art at its finest. I find myself so enraptured by it, that I am unable to leave until the movie is complete... and I've seen it about 100 times. This is not a movie to watch while doing something else.

Absolutely dreadful film.At the end of the film, you will definitely ask yourself what this film is all about. You will not be able to answer this as well.I realize that Robert Downey Jr. has had a tough life doing drugs. Must he submit to scripts such as this one? It's enough for him to revert back to his old habits.In it, a guy running from the police comes into an audition like situation for a part. He reads the part brilliantly and is immediately confused for a Marlon Brando-method-like acting person.After that, it's off to Hollywood parties with plenty of shooting, chase sequences and other nonsense galore.What's going on here? Corbin Bernsen appears as a father who took some drastic measures to prevent his own daughter from suing him. Someone should sue the director or the movie chains subjecting patrons to see this miserable mess.

I'm not a fan of violent prison movies and I certainly don't watch them twice. Shawshank Redemption is the first exception to that rule. I have to admit, that I hated the few violence scenes and the shooting, but in this movie it was necessary to convey the message of hope. Although I think that this is a wonderful, touching movie, I think it's also a fairy tale. Everything that happens to the main character is an exception, rather than a rule which weakens the movie. Other than that, it's a marvelous story about friendship, survival and hope. Watch and see for yourself how a person survives hell on earth.

Nothing seems to anger the crowd more than a filmmaker who tries to improve on an original. After twenty-seven years, Flatliners (2017) is back with the same story but instead of a science-fiction horror it has been updated into a fictional science thriller. If you consider this film on its own merits and not dwell on how or why it is different from the original, this is an intriguing story with the potential to raise several complex issues about death and redemption.By now the basic storyline is well known. Four out of a group of five friends who are medical students have their hearts stopped for a few minutes to experience death and peer into the beyond. The fifth is the group's sceptic and conscience. Over several days, these gods-in-training take turns dying in an isolated basement ward, avoiding detection by hospital authorities. They record each person's brain activity which shows elevated electrical disturbance in the minutes after death. Each of the four episodes encounters an emergency in the revival process and each has a heightened awareness or an enhanced ability after the experience. They also experience a flashback vision of a past mistake or error of judgement that must be confronted, and deal with it according to stereotype (spoilt rich kid versus poor kind girl). Of course, when you play with death anything can happen and each has a different demon to handle.The film's high-concept premise is the main star of the show: the cast are merely automatons who repetitively carry out the same scenario. The idea that it's possible to see what exists after our heart stops has preoccupied writers and artists since the dawn of time. The medical science constructions placed around this story give it some degree of plausibility and the psychological trauma that follows each person's experience are variations on the theme of 'last-chance for moral redemption'. Given the constraints of the storyline, the acting is mechanical, clichéd, and unremarkable. But that's not the film's major problem: seeing the film's premise repeated four times makes it tedious and takes away its only chance of developing any rising tension. By the time the last person is 'put to death' the film itself has irretrievably flat-lined and limps its way to a corny finalé.It did not have to be this way. Regardless of how Flatliners (2017) differs from Flatliners (1990) there was ample opportunity to take the new version to a higher level. Today's secular millennials are more aware than any generation before it and are curious to explore meanings of life from the perspective of death. The idea that in the twilight between life and death our worst sins come back to haunt us is not a spiritual or paranormal notion but one of earthly morality and redemption. But the film has no serious intentions. Like the young people it depicts, Flatliners (2017) is about thrills not intelligent discourse. In the end, the film gives us neither.

I mean really...What is there to this movie? No much besides the hype.So Diablo Cody is supposed to have been a stripper... Big deal... If that's even true! That doesn't make her a good writer or her dialog any good. Actually, the whole film so reek of fake cuteness and look-at-me-I'm-an-indie-film that it nauseates more than it entertains.It's so far from a must-see film as it get (while not as awful as Cloverfield) But then again nobody except the critics thinks Cloverfield is any good.Come to think of it, few besides the critics think Juno is any good either.

Fast and furious 7 is an American-Japanese action movie realized in 2015 by James Wan. It's the seventh movie in the series. The main actors are Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michel Rodriguez, Dwaye Johnson and Jordana Brewster, Jason Statham. The movie lasts 137 minutes. The movie is about Dominic Toretto and his family who anted to escape the wrath of Deckard Shaw who wanted revenge his dead brother in the previous movie (Fast and Furious 6) th movie starts with a Shaw very angry and thirsty of revenge. To revenge his brother, he attacks the commanding officer Hobbs, to have more information about Toretto and his team. The next day,outside Brian ans Mia's home, there is a large ans suspicious package. Toretto is with his family outside their house when he receives a call an anonymous person... Of course this person is Shaw who us Owen Shaw's brother, an ex-killer of the Special Forces and a monster who follow only his own rules. He informs Dom about his revenge and that he will do anything to kill them one by one. Just after the call, the package explodes and destroys the entire house. Since this day Dom and Shaw have just one and the sale goal: take revenge on each other. For it, police officers will call Dom and his team to take back "the Eye of God" which is a program to find someone no matter where he is in the world. In exchange Dom can use it against his worst enemy,Shaw, to overcome it. To find this program, they have to find Ramsey who is the Creator of it and the only one who has the code to open the "Eye of God"... After a lot of adventure to find it, they will go to Dubai and live many events... There will be many obstacles but Dom and his family is not going to be passive.

It's the dream of everybody to be able to meet a TV-star, a huge star and even to fall in love with that person and make that person fall in love with you. This film made me think about it twice. It was a great plot, although it sometimes lacked something, but I am not sure what. Julia Roberts made a great role with this as she posed for a big actress. Nevertheless, the movie was sometime exciting, although some goofs were made. All inall it's a good movie, and should be watched by the entire family.

This movie stunned me so much that I could hardly move from my seat when it was over. The dark cinematography is brilliant and works so well to enhance the story. Johnny Depp has given us so many amazing performances in the past and you can put this one up there at the top of the list. I have to admit that in the past I have loathed Tim Burton offerings but he redeems himself in my opinion with a feast for the eyes and ears that is a triumph. I approached the movie with trepidation because actors put in singing roles seldom work, but not this time. The singing was not only terrific, it was mesmerizing. I have to warn you this movie is for movie fans that love music (Broadway, classical or opera) and have a cast iron stomach. I heard they used 70 gallons of fake blood filming it and I believe them. All I can say is you can see the bloody scenes coming a mile off so you have plenty of time to avert your eyes.

The Hunger Games is a novel written by Suzanne Collins where in the country of Panem every year one boy and one girl from each of the twelve districts is chosen to fight against each other until only one is left alive. The book has some dark themes (teenage violence, famine, and an oppressive government), but it also has a love story that creep up throughout the series. The characters are genuine, the tone serious, and the message powerful. Unfortunately the screenplay translated none of these to the big screen. This is how The Hunger Games completely missed the mark.mocumentary style filming randomly….to make us feel like we are there..?Katniss finds the Mockingjay pin at the trading area, completely eliminating the scene with Madge which would have showed the extreme wealth difference in the country. Haymitch's drinking problem is non-existentLittle references to food and the lack there of, I thought it was supposed to be The Hunger Games..The way Haymitch explains every detail about the games to Peeta and Katniss makes it seem like they have no idea what the games involve. The flashbacks to Peeta giving Katniss bread looks like it could have been a week before the reapingThe male careers did not look like they had been training all their lives for a death tournamentBlurring out all the opening kills just to keep the pg-13 ratingKatniss finding water almost immediately, not bothering to purify it, made her look more lucky than intelligentThe careers found Katniss while SKIPPING and GIGGLING through the woods…Rue being the one to initiate the alliance with KatnissFoxfaceKatniss remained completely hidden next to the Cornucopia by one branch with barely any leavesThe Careers not seeing Katniss from twenty feet away after the food explosionPeeta appeared to be acting in love and Katniss appeared to actually be in love (Reverse from the book)Thresh's killThresh getting killed by the dogsThe dogsPeeta not getting hurt and losing his legNot revealing anything that the other tributes got in their special packsWhen the announcement for one winner was made, both of them just standing there and immediately choosing the berries instead of the suspicion of one of them perhaps killing the other.These are just a few of the things that I thought were complete misses on the big screen. Jennifer Lawrence did the best acting job she could with the screenplay she was given, but it was ruined by the poor acting of Josh Hutcherson completely failing to act the only was his character was written to act. In love. Katniss' character came off as a quiet unintelligent girl, who happened to know how to shoot a bow. Snow's additions helped strengthen his character and will definitely make him a formidable villain in the next movies. Overall though The Hunger Games missed the mark, obviously Katniss wasn't the one doing the shooting.

I'll admit that I went into this movie thinking the worst. I've never been one for the whole "car chase" movies. However, this movie really kept me interested. I thought the story and plot were very nicely put together. The performances by the actors were great on top of a great script! The special effects were an intelligent success. The way they did some of the stuff doesn't seem realistic...but when you think about it...it could all happen! Overall, a very pleasant surprise. I enjoyed this movie.

Despite the major disappearances in that script compared to the subtleties of the books that any fan will regret, this is still a great last chapter.Many trilogies never lived up to the first chapter that enticed crowds so much, the Matrix being the worst recent example!Here, all that really matters is present but I wish to raise one point: the real philosophy behind Tolkien's book gets twisted by the absence of Tom Bombadil and the scourging of the Shire. The power corrupts all and those two examples were fundamental, yet missing in Jackson's script.Tolkien's love for Nature and hate of rampant industrialisation was really one of the final notes of the book. It's missing here but it's still a great film.9/10

A film can be good in spite of a bad performance, but a good performance rarely provides enough compensation in an otherwise weak film. 'Bronson' claims to follow the title character through his years of crime and incarceration in Britain, but it is more accurately described by Roger Ebert: "92 minutes of rage, acted by Tom Hardy." As you may expect from this brief but accurate description, the film features its fair share of fights. Interestingly, these are usually captured in close resemblance to 'A Clockwork Orange'. This may have been intentional, as both films can be interpreted as satires of the justice system, told from the perspective of a particularly troublesome offender. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. Although the protagonist of Nicolas Refn's 'Bronson' is a man both real and living, he is profoundly uninteresting. The novelty of Tom Hardy screaming expletives soon wears off, and there is very little substance lying beneath the character's violent exterior. A higher standard of writing could have made Charles Bronson an interesting subject for a biopic, but the inability of Refn's film to confront the man seriously means that the viewer learns almost nothing about Charles Bronson in watching the film. 'Bronson' could have explored the ethics and psychological impact of solitary confinement, the public fascination with figures like Charles Bronson, and what the aims are (and should be) of long-term imprisonment. It doesn't. I can only recommend this film to die- hard fans of Tom Hardy, although I don't believe that this is (as many believe) his best performance. He's better in 'Locke', I think.

JUMANJII loved this movie when it first came out and I still love it today!The movie is about a boy who finds a board game called Jumanji. When he takes it home and starts to play it with a friend, he soon realises that this is no ordinary game. He gets sucked into the game and is not released again until 26 years later 2 more kids find the game and release him. Now he is grown up and has to find a way to end this game before everything it releases destroys the town.Due to the sad passing of the genius that was Robin Williams, the TV channels have decided to show all of his movies. Jumanji was the first one I saw. The story to this film is like not her that I had seen before. It was an original idea (unless there is another film I don't know about) that was just so imaginative. It works really well and has a great adventure element about it.The effects are average. This was made in the mid 90s so that probably has something to do with it. The animals were obviously not real. You could see the lion was so mechanical it made me laugh. And the other animals were so obviously computer generated. But it was comical and that just added to the fun of the film.The acting was great. The main character was played by Robin Williams. He was as energetic and full of character in this role, just like he brought to every role he took. Other cast members were Jonathan Hyde, a young Kirsten Dunst, Bradley Pierce and Bonnie Hunt. Bonnie Hunt was brilliant. Her reaction and facial expressions made me laugh a few times in this. Another stand out performance was by David Alan Grier. David was so funny as the cop. His comedy timing was excellent and deserves a mention.This film really does keep you entertained throughout and is just a lot of fun to watch... Even now nearly 20 years later.I will give this 7 out of 10.Normally I end my reviews with a quote from the movie, but this time I just want to say how gutted I am about the news of Robins death. I am a fan of his work. I watched Mork and Mindy when I was a kid and grew up watching Jumanji, Mrs. Doubtfire, Hook, Flubber, Good Morning Vietnam, Jack etc... There were so many great films that he made. I always saw Robin as so full of energy and full of life. He had one of the greatest smiles in Hollywood and when i saw an interview with him, he seemed so chirpy and happy. It just shows that in front of the camera, you never know what is going on in people's heads. I was sad to hear he had been suffering from depression. Depression is such a deadly illness. I know this sounds stupid, but I am gutted that I was not there to talk to him, help him. I hate to think that he felt so alone, especially as he had millions of fans all over the world that knew him on screen. He made the world laugh out loud so many times. Even through bad times in my life, watching his movies has put a smile on my face. Robin deserved much more happiness than he got. He gave so much to me and the rest of the world and it doesn't seem right that he should end his life this way. I will miss seeing new movies from him, but will always continue to go back to enjoy his old ones. Robin will live on in my house and he will always continue to make me smile. R.I.P. Robin Williams.

This movie looked quite interesting, but left me disappointed. Believe me,this has got to be one of the most boring chick flicks ever, and I only watched it because it looked good, but I guess looks can be deceiving.The movie is basically about a boy Zach ( Freddie Prinze Jr.) who gets dumped by his girlfriend,and takes on a bet to turn the most geekiest,boring, girl in school into prom queen,( Rachel Leigh Cook)but what he doesn't know is that he will end up liking her.This movie is quite entertaining, but only at some parts. I've seen many chick flicks, and this has got to be the one that didn't entertain me as much as I was hoping.Freddie Prinze Jr. is cute, and acts well. Rachel Leigh Cook is convincing. Overall, and okay watch , just to pass time.

As an avid movie watcher with a very open mind, there are very few movies in the world that I would consider rating a 1 out of 10. Skyline accomplished that.There was only one redeeming quality about the movie - the special effects. The quality of the aliens and their capabilities was more than adequate to be believable.The plot full of characters that have barely a shred of honor or inner strength was horrific. Nothing engaged me save the aliens. I literally found myself not only wishing that all but one of the characters was killed by the aliens, but being underwhelmed with the predictable and lame dialogue.Again, I'm not a negative person about movies, but this may have just become my least favorite movie of all time.

I just love this movie. Full stop.I don't want to say much because this movie is amazing, by far the best DC film (up there with the dark night series).Wonder Women is very good looking and BADASS!!!! - but what do you expect she's a superhero.This movies worth your time to go and see at the cinema because it is a brilliant movie.

I must say, it's seldom I see such well filmed piece of garbage. The film itself is very well filmed and instructed, but the story is ludicrous, unrealistic and absurd. Without any respect for human life, values or forgiveness, something that our Christian culture should be based on.It's seldom I comment here, but this film is such trash that I had to. I have a lot of respect for Tarantino, but I think this is probably the worst he's done. And the same can be said about Uma. I just regret that I paid money for the DVD.[ REPEATER - Don't READ] I must say, it's seldom I see such well filmed piece of garbage. The film itself is very well filmed and instructed, but the story is ludicrous, unrealistic and absurd. Without any respect for human life, values or forgiveness, something that our Christian culture should be based on.It's seldom I comment here, but this film is such trash that I had to. I have a lot of respect for Tarantino, but I think this is probably the worst he's done. And the same can be said about Uma. I just regret that I paid money for the DVD.

Well acted production tells the story of one family, two brothers - all of whom have their own issues to be dealt with. A pretty good portrayal of a hard scrabble life in Lowell, MA.Dialogue, script, acting and direction are all good; but, nothing really struck me as benefiting all the hype this film has generated.This is not a boxing movie; rather, a well done character study.Worth a couple of hours in the theater with good popcorn - an escape only - you'll not leave the theater reveling about the film - maybe not even thinking of it once you get as far as your car.Three stars for the acting only, not the entire package.

When I first saw the trailer for Zombieland I feared that it was simply to be a poor American copy of the classic British film Shaun of the Dead. Luckily I was wrong and Zombieland is a funny, action comedy in its own right and nearly as good as Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg's work.Two months after a virus turns most of the world's population into flesh eating zombies, Zombieland follows the survivor "Columbus" (Jesse Eisenberg), a social outcast who follows his list of 31 rules to survive. On the way back to home to Columbus, Ohio "Columbus" meets "Tallahassee" (Woody Harrelson), a handy man at killing zombies and on a mission to find the world's last Twinkie in world. After getting rob by two sisters, "Wichita" (Emma Stone) and "Little Rock" (Abigail Breslin) the four end up joining forces and head west to California, believing that there is an uninfected area.What makes Zombieland work is a very strong and witty script by Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese, excellent direction from Ruben Fleischer and top comic performances from a great cast. The writers and Fleischer were able to mix both great witty dialogue, funny lines and reactions with excellent physical humour, sight gags and violence slapstick.Fleischer is a very stylist director, with particular the opening credits set during the collapse of society and the way the rules come up on screen. He was able to make a quick paced film, with a lot of violence action. The zombies are more like the creatures in 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead, fast and disgusting looking: they would have fitted well in a serious horror film. Fleischer knew how to handle his set-piece and much of the action was of top quality. The style of mixing bloody violence with a light hearted tone and some serious moments, and the way it was shot reminded me of Kick-Ass (which was actually released six months after Zombieland). The writers were able to inject some character development, allowing the characters to grow from lonely and develop trust and they do allow for serious moments and make the film more then just a mindless comedy gore feast. The scene in the store reminded me a little bit of the scene in 28 Days Later.There is great chemistry between the cast. Eisenberg and Harrelson are both normal comic talents and were an fine chalk and cheese combo. Emma Stone is an actress with potential and she dominate the feisty chick role: she looked the part (and was great looking) and she worked particularly well with a big name actor in cameo role. I look forward to seeing her in the next Spider-man film, but I think she would have been perfect as Mary-Jane Watson rather then Gwen Stacy. I am sure that a bit of dialogue was ad-lipped, which is always smart thing to do in a comedy. Breslin has shown she has had a good child actress ever since her debut in Signs and that had comic talent in Little Miss Sunshine. She also worked well with Harrelson, with them arguing and have a dislike to each other and talking about Willy Nelson and Hannah Montana. Plus she had a shotgun and any film can improve if it has an 11-year-old girl with shotgun.Dave Sardy also gave the film a fitting, intense rock score, adding to fun nature of the film.

The film focuses upon Chris Vaughn(The Rock)a former US soldier who goes back to his home and finds the town is ruled by a corrupt ringleader(Neal McDonough) owned of a casino.Drug and crime run over the place and he along with a friend(Johnny Knoxville) decides clean it converting himself in Sheriff .Meanwhile he falls in love with a stripper(Kristen Wilson). The film is a powerful story about one army man and his fight for what he believes in and he has to find justice outside of the law . Director Kevin Bray captures every bone-crunching hit,kick,punch ,he wants to make sure that the action was raw,intense action sequences.Today's cinematic world of explosions,gunplay,people floating through the air and everything else you could imagine however this film is a just straight-up,old-fashioned,old school,hard nose,blue-collar and great feeling of realism .Club-wielding sheriff with a four by four piece of ceder gives hits and punch.The protagonist admirable rendered by the Rock has a big stick and he's trying to knock somebody's jaw loose.Violents incidents have a different flavor and character to go on and do more to succeed at his goal.The first incident in casino has a train-wreck chaos and hell breaks loose in old-fashioned stomp .In the next incident when he returns for revenge,it's more stealthy kind of shooting style because it's a more stealthy incident,he's got a bit of a plan even though he's acting out of rage,he's using the techniques and skills that he learned in the military.The third is basically just make it as riveting and energetic as possible,just a real thing,director is bringing back the movies of old,of yesterday that really took visceral raw action and put it on screen .This is an ultraviolent crime film wowed the movie-going public. The picture is dedicated to the memory of Tenesse folk hero sheriff Buford Passer but is based on real deeds.In fact,the movie is a remake of ¨Walking Tall¨1973 by Phil Karlson (with Joe Don Baker) and spawned numerous sequels(with Bo Svenson)and TV series.This film is even more violent than original . Rating : Mediocre but entertained

This is one of those movies that appeal to me tremendously, that is movies about childhood and coming of age written by and for adults. Most of them are based on books, making beautiful stories, with soul and originality.In "The Virgin Suicides" the story is told by four kids, trying to understand five beautiful girls in a very strict family, living across the street. Final tragedy makes them only less likely to understand the feelings and lives of the girls and renders them impotent watchers of a story they haven't been part of, just like everyone else.But this is not a moral easily detected. This is not a movie where black is black and white is white and the ideas of the writer/director are forcefully pushed down one's throat. The story is watched and then relayed to the viewer. You can either sympathize with the strict moral mother or hate her you can agree with the "freedom or death" slogan or believe it stupid; you can understand the reactions of the boys or curse them for not acting faster or better or differently.Bottom line: you have to see it to make something of it. I personally think the movie is a good one, but not a great one. If I could, I would rate it 7.4.

Who wouldn't love Paris! Who doesn't love fantasy! And if you are in love with both of them, Midnight in Paris would be the fantasy you would hate to come out of. And i too felt the same, I never wanted to come out of the dream I was in, i was sedated with sensuousness walking along with Owen Wilson through the streets of Paris, meeting eminent artists whom i always loved to meet, and finally getting someone whom i could walk in the rain with, talking about everything which I love about.Woody Allen was never my favorite until i saw "Midnight in Paris". Owen Wilson was cute - I really would like to see more of him in meaty roles like this rather than in silly romcoms, Marion Cotillard was sweet & gorgeous. The casting was too good, that it would be hard to find anyone misplaced. The music and background score did make the movie experience merrier. I would love to watch this movie over & over again, its hard for me to stay away from this fantasy..

Let´s face it. This movie is packed with some of the greatest action scenes around, but that´s really about it. Actually, Terminator II is nothing more than a 2 / 2.5 hours chain of action scenes and so-called cool one-liners. This movie will probably appeal most to adolescents, since they´re the ones who are likely to really appreciate this kind of movie. The message, if any, is one of taking notice of and watching out for expanding technology. This is all very obvious, and, since this is a movie aimed at younger people, therefor a good thing.Bottom line: if you want to spend a evening watching mindless, not-so-hard violence enjoying some of the best computer powered action scenes ever seen in a movie, rent this one. It´s a must-see! If you want to see a movie with a more significant, meaningful storyline, don´t. This is probably not your kind of movie.My verdict: 7/10 (it´s better than your average action movie, mainly because of the great action scenes).

I don't know why such a mama wanna accept the crazy movie ,it should be done by that younger girl who wanna getting famous in short time.BI2,iwanna make sure what is human-being's BT?love or make love?everyone understand the power of love and its BI?so what is the meaning to maintain it?is this the only way to impress it by make BI2?if u wanna share the love,u can watch the adult movie,more directly and comfortably! in china, if u have a mama such stone showing off her body and skill on TV,U R dead,definitely!this is incredible and impossible!it's very hard to imagine your mama making such cult movie!how dare she!

A good story told at a measured pace. Not a masterpiece, but probably the only Marvel Studios movie since Iron Man 1 that approaches being a 'great' movie (though its not there yet).A lot of Star Wars imagery, from the design of the ships to the framing of the shots; when the 'Alien Elves' erupt out of that hole thing, it feels like the opening of A New Hope! This could be my favourite Marvel Studios movie after Iron Man 1.I hope Marvel continues in this direction, but let the directors have MORE control, more vision and more passion.A very entertaining blockbuster, but the next one will be better.http://www.comicbooksyndicate.com/thor-the-dark-world/

I should say as an Adult I should not be reviewing this movie or some may say but this movie was directed with a great piece of art. Apart from laughter, this movie is riddled with well written emotion through out. Kids would love this movie but not as much as an adult. Well done director and good luck with the nomination.Fantastic Animation !!!In this epic age of video games arcade games would be a corner stone hidden away in the darkness of a university campus of closed high street chain. But even so to think that would be a mistake in this movie as the director actually in my mind made me want to play an arcade game. You probably would not have a clue what I am on about if you haven't watch this story so get out there with your kids and WATCH THIS !!

The only reason I can fathom that this has been nominated for a best picture Academy Award is that it is a story about actors angst and so appeals in some way to the Actors voting. Overacted and clichéd this story has been told before and much better. Perhaps there are a number of industry inside gags that the average cinema going public wouldn't get. I dunno, but I do know I spent a tedious 2 hours or more hoping somehow the film would redeem itself. It didn't. The best thing in the movie in my view was the special effects of Michael Keaton flying and the big Birdman chasing him. It wasn't enough to sustain my interest.Edward Norton is one of my favourite actors, but his portrayal here of the actor as "artist" was overwrought. Emma Stone put in a nice performance as the troubled indulgent daughter just out rehab and Micheal Keaton did his best, but the script didn't give them much to work with. Every character was the cliché you would expect in a story about a celebrity wanting to be taken seriously as an " artiste". Sadly there were no surprises in the story arc. The ending was kitschy and ridiculous. In my cinema one of the patrons snored loudly through the last hour and a number walked out. I wish I had. Don't waste your money.

I was rather disappointed in the fact that two well-known and well liked actors could not produce any chemistry on the screen. The dialog was less than childish and the musical score was heart-breaking. The only bearable character in the movie was Grant's playfully annoying flat mate. This movie had promise, but a very poor script.

Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, on the surface, is prime property for Terry Gilliam. And he nails it. Visually, it's quite interesting.If only he'd understood a single Goddamn word of what the book stood for.At best, it's a naive adaptation, more intent on showing off neat visual tricks than making a point. At worst, it's a lousy mess with some good performances that elevate it above a complete disaster; a very weak movie worth watching. One that substitutes substance with all the fun of watching people do drugs (which, if you've ever seen it, isn't much fun). It's nice if things look good, it's not nice if they're meaningless.

I understand the needs for reasoning such abnormal and extreme behavior but, I don't think that his family and childhood experiences are the reason for that. If that was the case then we would have seen these kind of things happening a lot more frequently. I think that Chris was a very sensitive person, and perhaps, too sensitive for our tough society....I guess escaping to the wild will be the best solution for those who constantly suffers the unfairness of being. So I would personally prefer the movie without all that popular psychology and put some more emphasis on his unique and special personality, that is an extraordinary sensitiveness combined with a beautiful and idealistic mind.