Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

If you're wondering why I put exclamation points after the headline, it's because I thought this movie was just another overrated pile of junk. Man was I wrong! This movie was quite good. Sure it isn't the greatest movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely in my Top 250! This should definitely replace boring THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION as #1 in the Top 250. It's about the Corleone family's criminal empire run by Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and trying to pass it on to his son Michael (Al Pacino) You shouldn't watch this movie if you are under age 16 though. It's quite violent and no one under that age would understand it anyway. Definitely watch this movie. It is very well done.8.5/10 or: B

I'm conflicted in my opinion of the final adventure of the Next Generation crew. I can see why a lot the fan community slam the film but I can't help but find some positive aspects in the movie. I agree that it's a good thing NEMESIS was the final film in the series, as the filmmakers appear to have given up recapturing the essence of the series years before and were more interested in putting out blockbuster hopefuls. The film opens with the marriage of Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) to Counselor Troi (Marina Sirtis), but the festivities are soon put on hold when the Enterprise-E locates a prototype android identical to Data scattered in pieces on a nearby planet. As the android (dubbed B-4) is reassembled, the Enterprise is dispatched to Romulus where the Remans have risen up against the Romulans and their leader apparently seeks to find peace with the Federation. The Remans are led by a clone of Captain Picard named Shinzon (Tom Hardy), originally bred as a weapon against Starfleet but eventually relegated to the dilithium mines of Remus. Picard struggles with the feeling that a portion of his identity was stolen as the Enterprise is discovers that Shinzon's intentions are not those of peace, but of destruction.As has been the case with all of the Next Generation movies (with the exception of INSURRECTION), this film is visually beautiful. The CGI effects are at their peak and the production design of Herman Zimmerman continues to blow me away. I loved the design of the Remans: part Romulan, part vampire. It was some of the best makeup design in the series since the Borg were redesigned for FIRST CONTACT. The filmmakers have even learned from their mistakes of the last film and used a cinematographer who gave the film a wonderful cinematic feel, as opposed to the flat television lighting they'd regressed to before. Nothing about the film's visual style disappoints, but the same can't be said for the story. Most of the earlier films retained the depth of the series, but NEMESIS really is nothing more than a flashy action pic. For proof, you need to look no further than the entire last half of the film. There is some weak subtext to the story but the entire second hour is drawn out battle leading to the climactic confrontation between Picard and Shinzon about the enemy ship.As seems to be the norm with all of the Next Generation movies, Picard and Data are the focal points here. The other crew members are usually given plenty of their own to do, but not here. A lot of the crew members are underused and I'm sure they weren't happy about being background players in their final feature film. Patrick Stewart is certainly the strongest member of the cast and carries most of the movie, and Brent Spiner is great as usual as Data (and B-4). I wish I had more positive things to say about Tom Hardy as Shinzon. He's a fantastic actor and has the skills to go face-to-face with Patrick Stewart (for those who doubt me, watch his screen test for the film). I just couldn't help but feel his character was too young and that really robbed me of any sense of danger from him. Had he been a bit more aged and worn, I might see him as a threat to Picard.I suppose the film is a fun action flick, but it's just a weak STAR TREK film. It's shallow story can't be saved by it's impressive effects, but I wish the crew had been given one more chance to do it right before calling it quits. It's an entertaining two hours but aside from a bittersweet ending there's nothing entirely memorable about it. Fans of the franchise will be polarized in their views on the film and non-fans might be able to stomach it as an action-packed sci-fi romp. One thing's for certain: it's not the best time spent with the crew of the Enterprise.

Like most of the reviewers, I thought this movie was excellent.A rather vital point that I feel must be clarified, however, is for the reviewers that mistakenly classify their relationship as sadomasochistic. Although their initial contact involved him spanking her, neither this, nor any other part of their relationship, as depicted in the movie, would be considered sadomasochistic. The general acronym "BDSM" does cover the whole range of activities: "B&D" (Bondage & Discipline), "D&S" (Dominance & Submission), and "S&M" (sadomasochism) -- but the general public usually has rather narrow minded stereotypes associated w/ just "sadomasochism." These generalizations tend to focus solely on the giving of pain, and not to the fullness of the relationship - especially as is realized and represented by Edward & Lee in this movie.

Many years ago, the characters, Jack and Karen, from TV's Will & Grace, jokingly agreed with audiences (including me) that the show should've been about them. THIS movie should've just been about Joker and Harley. Those two in a movie filled with lifeless, useless and boring characters *almost* serves as a recommendation. But, when all you have is two wonderful villains in a sea of misfires that should've been at least cool, it's too much of a letdown film to spread good word-of-mouth.And the lack of a fun time you would've had with a bunch of misfits gone good is nothing in comparison to how bad the script was. The whole movie was so far all over the place, it always felt like there was another movie with an extra hour of footage that was cut out making the overall picture a completely incomprehensible mess. Suicide Squad's own premise makes no sense whatsoever, just to begin with. After (too) many flashbacks and backstories that also continue throughout the film, a plan is hatched to use the vilest baddies to, um, uh, I guess help keep people safe? All-but midstream of the planning stages, a mission so convoluted gets the "we won't sign on" team ready to go fight…whatever.In one of the many subplots, a slave to the "good-guys" causes Man of Steel-sized havoc in a downtown city. Superheroes are mentioned, used and are actively fighting crime, and yet… Never was there a thought of asking for help, nor did the actual righteous heroes even notice the city under attack or hundreds dying. Yeah, this is the same argument in the Marvel Universe, such as: In Thor's movies, where's Iron Man when he's totally needed. That's a huge hole in both Marvel and DC Universe films and I guess they just ask us to accept it. Whatever.The movie had pretty subpar special effects and nothing to view on the big screen. The actors kept trying to give emotional speeches but always strayed away from their character build-ups. And the plot holes and editing was so shoddy, it lead me to believe this wasn't the movie we were supposed to see.Again, that all said, man did I like Harley and this version of Joker. I've heard complaints about Jared Leto's take and I didn't have one problem with it. I've seen so many incarnations of him, I'm used to new visions of "J." From Cesar Romero's to Jack Nicholson's to my person favorite, Heath Ledger's, The Joker has many faces and motivations. So, I was cool with him.Overall, with Joker and the absolutely fabulous Harley Quinn, the movie barely squeaks to a star over the lowest rating. MAYBE, you can watch this at home, for free, like on Netflix or a free Redbox rental, but only to see them. Everything else is incidental. And bad.***Final thoughts: Shame on you DC. Sadly, there's a post-credit scene (NOT A FAN) and it's a hundred percent rip-off of the Marvel film's post- credit scenes. Almost verbatim. Not to mention, it's something we already know about, so it was pointless. IF you see this movie, you can stay through the first part of the end credits to see this, but be warned: It's just melted icing on an already spoiled cake.

This movie feels more of a comedy-drama than a comedy. While I was tempted to stop after 15 or so minutes (I usually stop watching after 15-30 minutes, and sometimes after 30-60 minutes), it managed to become better.The first quarter is funny at times but also boring.The next quarter manages to improve by being less boring when there is drama.The quarter after that manages to not be too boring, but okay when there is drama.The last quarter had good comedy and drama.Some of the jokes do fall flat, though, even if they manage to generally be consistent. In addition, most of the jokes were only mildly amusing.Pros:Consistent jokesDrama is good later onCons:Not really that funnyBoring early onScore: 6

First off, let me start out by saying this isn't a terrible movie. It certainly is not one of the worst horror movie remakes out there, but I can't help but feel disappointed from the 2013 version of Carrie. First off, this movie does not really add anything new to the mix. It's basically a copy of the original 1976 film, just with a modern setting. I generally am less critical of remakes than most, so the fact that I didn't like this should indicate that it just wasn't that good. I found myself bored throughout a lot of the movie. I've already seen the original, so why do I need to pay to see the exact movie again?The director really should have gone out of her way to differentiate this film from its predecessor, instead of making a near shot-for-shot remake like 1998's Psycho. One example of a remake that attempts to add something new to the mix is Rob Zombie's Halloween. While that film was pretty weak also, at least it tried to inject something new to the storyline. The only thing I can say that was better about the 2013 Carrie is that the gym teacher lived. I never understood why she died in the 1976 version since she was one of the few people that was nice to Carrie, so her survival made more sense in this movie. Other than that, the original far surpasses this version. If you haven't seen the original, you might like this film as you have nothing to compare it with. However, some that haven't seen the original still might find themselves bored. One last criticism with this version is the prom scene. You'd think with the special effects improvements between 1976 and 2013, this version's killer prom sequence would blow the original's out of the water. Not the case, as the original killer prom scene was much better in my opinionOverall, this wasn't a terrible film, but cannot even remotely compare to the original. Those that haven't seen the first film might very well enjoy it, but for those who have, you most likely will leave the theater disappointed. This remake was completely unnecessary, and adds absolutely nothing to the mix. If you've seen the original, then you've basically seen this as it's a hollow copy of it.Final Rating: 4/10

As a guy in a long-term relationship, I get dragged to a lot of romantic-comedy junk, which the film biz seems to spit out by the gross.Imagine my surprise when this one turned out to be quite funny indeed. Yes, a lot of it is formulaic, and there are plot holes aplenty, but the script allows Hugh Grant's quiet, understated comic style to shine big-time. The British have an absolute embarrassment of riches when it comes to acting talent, and this movie just proves the point - the supporting cast was great.I don't generally care for Hugh Grant, Julia Roberts, or romantic comedies in general, but I really enjoyed this one. 8/10.

I waited a long time to get to see this film. I'm a huge Shaun of the Dead fan.My first impression was that it had a better technical feel than SOTD and was very well made, however, I was struggling to laugh at much of it. There were some funny moments but despite trying hard to enjoy it I'm afraid I was left quite disappointed.In SOTD there was great chemistry between the two leads, this seemed to be missing in HF. The main character Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) was an outstanding police officer and could do no wrong, a feature I just don't find funny. I preferred the loser makes good in a crisis theme of SOTD. Nick Frost's character (PC Danny Butterman) was much funnier.I have re-watched this film again and found that halfway through I became bored and distracted. This does not happen with SOTD which I regularly replay.I am a little surprised by the high score others have given it. Most people I know personally agree with me, that though it is a reasonable British comedy with some funny moments it is not in the same class as the classic Shaun of the Dead.Worth watching, but not one for the collection.

Lets cut to the chase. Here is a movie about a bunch of characters that lack the ability to have a healthy relationship and seem perfectly happy to play partner swap between themselves. Hmmm.... how could a story so perfect for late night on cine-max be so royally ruined? Bad script, bad editing and bad acting.First warning any movie patron should note is that plays rarely translate into good movies. Face it, plays are filled with pompous preachy diatribes that stage actor seem to love and some people seem willing to watch. But I want a movie where the words from the character have meaning and seem real, here they are too often over extended speeches that push the realm of reality. In most any scene you start to wonder why one of the characters doesn't just walk away. You get the feeling they all just want to yammer on and on for the sake of hearing themselves whine and moan.Editing: I'm sorry but if you want to jump around in time, give me a clue that you are going forward three years or back one year or whatever. Don't make me listen so closely to what they are saying to figure it out. I don't have a copy of the playbill from the original play so I don't have the advantage of a written guide to what scene I'm watching.Acting: Okay, I can accept Clive Owens acting... Even Julia was acceptable.... BUT, Jude Law seemed to be do the same character he did in the last two movies he was in, only now he talk on and on about nothing. And lest I forget Portman, GOOD GOD was this a mistake. Yeah she seems believable for a while but when you get to the part of the movie where she goes back to being a stripper.... I'm sorry but if you want to play a stripper and be believable take your clothes off. I could only laugh as she is up their as a strip among other actors that are actually bare breasted and she is wearing more than you would see on a beach. If you take a job acting as a stripper get naked, otherwise you come across as a joke. You start thinking, "Oh, she wanted to get away from being the nice queen of Star Wars... Ooops did she read that script the first time? guess not and so you no longer believe her portrayal...I could rant on but suffice it to say the movie sucked... maybe it was a good play, but as a movie it ain't even worth the time on cable.

This one is not as bad as the rating here suggests. I was drawn into the atmosphere right from the beginning and immediately bonded with the characters. The increase of tension as the crew approaches and then enters the ship is very well paced. The way how hints that something very strange is going on become more frequent and less subtle kept me on the edge of the couch.As the nightmare unfolds there are some truly scary scenes to be savoured. There is a very personal component to this nightmare for every character, which adds depth and originality to many of the jump / gore scenes. This also creates interesting situations when the characters try to communicate their experiences to each other. It's all in your head, right?The whole thing becomes a little inane and over the top towards the end, but if you like this genre just the slightest bit you probably won't mind too much.There is a load of great special effects in this film (I especially liked the zero-g stuff), gorgeous set pieces and all kinds of neat little high-tech props. This combined with some Hellraiser style splatter and gore - a truly enjoyable experience!If you can get over the flaws that this film without doubt has (read other comments to find out what they are) my recommendation is: lights out, volume up and enjoy the ride!Rated 7/10

I was dying to see this film, I loved everything about the first 300 and couldn't wait for more battle and glory. But sadly this was not meant to be. I didn't warm to the characters at all however it must be acknowledged that Eva Green took a brilliant role. The story line had excellent potential but I wanted more from it.Sullivan Stapleton whilst good just didn't achieve the same impact as those in the original and not to sound like a old woman but I thought the sex scene was totally inappropriate and couldn't understand the importance of it. Seriously that kind of sexual violence for a 15??Disappointing

I've recently seen Following, both the original version and the chronological one, both of which available on the DVD. This movie is an amazing achievement for a guy who didn't go to film school. Nolan is a great talent and maybe he becomes our time's Hitch. Well, obviously Nolan enjoys messing around with the audience. The non-linear version of the film seems like an intelligent thriller - it's exiting to the bitter end. But, it' s only a way of editing. This editing style gives the film an elegant touch, as well as covering holes in the story. You really have to concentrate to follow the main plot, so then you easily accept holes in the sub-plots. Well, when watching the chronological version you find numerous logical errors. Additionally there are scenes that should be added to the film. The core of the film is this: Cobb is afraid of being accused of a murder so he makes Bill look like the guilty one. Well, the crime which is the most important event has been left out of the film. Probably they didn't shoot this scene at all. In cinematic terms this is bad storytelling. The answer to all the missing material in the film is of course all the limits this production had, as well as Nolan's lack of experience. I guess his idea was to make a linear film and, when editing, discovered this didn't work. Instead of re-shooting he played with his material in the editing period. Like other great directors, he understood that cinema is a way manipulating the audience. Other great films with non linear structure: Memento (of course) and L'Appartement.

Todd Phillips third and final installment to The Hangover franchise is undoubtedly the third best. Its much darker plot takes it from being an comedy driven laugh riot like the others to being a grimy hard action film that struggles to find humor.The story does not in fact revolve around a hangover like the title and previous movies suggest, but instead opts for an action vibe centered around the search for the infamous Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) character. Chow has stolen money from the wrong guy and it is up to the wolf pack to find him and hand him over before the man after Chow kills Doug (Justin Bartha). The acting in this installment seemed like it had been put on auto-pilot, the characters seem a little stale and don't share the same lovable chemistry we see in the previous films. The main problem with this movie is that it doesn't feel like it belongs in the franchise. Too many eggs were put into the basket of Ken Jeong as he was made a main character and his style just doesn't work for a full 100 minutes the way it does in the 10-15 minute chunks of the other movies.All this said, the movie does have some good points, Zach Galifankis is not as fine tuned as he's been in the past but he does create the bulk of the laughs in this one, as he did in the others. Cooper and Helms are also lesser versions of their normal selves but they do occasionally break through with some funny material. It's darker, less funny, more rude and less of a good time then its predecessors, however it is still nice to see the gang back together one last time. The movie uses a solid soundtrack, decent homages to the other films in the series, and a few laughs to keep it from being a failure and for that it gets a 6.5/10.

The Emperor's New Groove really enjoys me from doing work. So i all did was go to the computer and Emperor's New Groove then me and my dad saw it and i laughed and my dad laughed more. This movie really should make a third called The Emperor's New Groove 3: Pacha's New Groove (thinking). This movie is just so funny and entertaining. I love the actors for example: David Spade (Grown Ups),John Goodman (The Big Lebowski) and Eartha Kitt (singer as well). For finding out that was meant to be the best comedy film of 2000 it didn't get any awards. This movie i should really appreciate it's comedy and family slapstick. This movie i rated 10 stars because that is so funny movie.Made by LucaElliot (gsa@nortrail.no)

Mr. Nobody concerns the complex principles of quantum mechanics of time, specifically the often-debated and discussed "many-worlds theory," which basically boils down to the possibility of numerous, external universes existing operating upon the choices you've never made yourself. Consider myself choosing to hang out with a friend of mine today after finishing my classes rather than working on schoolwork or my writing. Had I went home directly after finishing my classes, perhaps I would've gotten more of my schoolwork done, which could've resulted in better grades, which would've made my GPA higher, which would've potentially gotten me better job opportunities, which could've even made my income a bit higher.Of course, you could "what if?" damn-near every circumstance of your life to the point where you can make yourself suicidal over what you could've done and what you wound up doing, but that's not healthy at all. The details of quantum mechanics have been softly examined in film for quite sometime (one film that immediately comes to mind is the opening monologue of Richard Linklater's Slacker delivered by Linklater himself from the back of a taxicab). However, rarely does a film muster up the ambition and conviction to tackle on the often headache-inducing ins and outs of such lofty ideas, which are nothing more than theories in scholarly articles that populate the internet.Writer/director Jaco Van Dormael apparently had enough confidence to concoct a lengthy screenplay and timeline around the idea and the result is Mr. Nobody, an admirably ambitious film that, like the very basic ideas of quantum mechanics, packs a great deal of ideas into a relatively small box and tries to make us chew on them long enough before we either choke or spit them out. We open in the year 2092, where humans are now immortal thanks to the endless renewal of cells; the last mortal on Earth is the 117-year-old Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto), who is edging ever-so-closely to death as society watches the last soul among them with the capability to die. A psychiatrist named Dr. Feldheim (Allan Corduner) manages to snag one final interview with Nemo before his imminent death, since Nemo also has a rare ability to account the past lives he could've lived had he made a different choice in a crucial situation as a young child.At the age of nine, Nemo had the choice of which parent he wanted to stay with after their separation. At first, we see him tardily hop aboard a train with his mother, where, in three separate story lines, he becomes smitten with a woman named Anna, in one world insulting her and her friends, at another point conversing with them, and another, marrying and raising children with her. Yet another alternate life shows the multitude of possibilities that could've happened had he stayed home and lived with his father, where Nemo meets an entirely new woman named Elise, who, in one story, is still in love with her boyfriend, but another, is bipolar and manic depressive, making Nemo's life a living hell.Mr. Nobody is anything but a linear experience; at two and a half hours in length, the film plays like a repetitive stageplay, exhausting every potential narrative possibility as it showcases every which way Nemo's life could've gone. We see situations repeat themselves, lines of dialog slightly altered to create a new scene, and through it all, Nemo Nobody, who has lived more lives to the fullest than we'll be lucky to live one. As narratively ambitious as this story is, shortcomings seem to plague or limit the film's greatness on a consistent basis. To begin with, Nemo isn't that engaging of a person, nor is Leto that expressive or interesting as a character actor to sustain a film as lofty or as long as this one. Nemo doesn't grab us in with his personality because, through many of his scenes, he's a passive presence; almost an accessory or a side-character to his own life. He doesn't seem too fazed by the multitude of things occurring in his life at any given moment, with limited facial and vocal expression, which makes it hard for us, the audience, to truly sympathize with him. With that, as stated, Leto doesn't bring a ton to the table as Nemo either; his presence is lacking the kind of engagement that protagonists usually possess, especially with such a liberal amount of runtime/screen time to work with, which results in a part of the film that sags dramatically.After some contemplation, that element seems to be Mr. Nobody's biggest issue. Other features - such as a narrative that repeats itself quite frequently, an almost inherently exhausting and maddening amount of existentialism to chew on, and a timeline that results in a viewer doing mental hopscotch to try to cogently understand it - are almost to be expected with a film dealing with quantum mechanics, so complaining about them, despite their presence, seems a bit foolish. In addition, overly emphasizing these attributes can greatly make one forget about the commendable ambition and scope Van Dormael possesses for his screenplay. He respects the screenplay enough to deeply consider the limitless possibilities of the many-worlds theory, to the point where I wished he would've focused on a more engaging presence instead of the flatter, less convincing protagonist we got with our titular character.Mr. Nobody has a whirlwind going for it in the conversational/post-credits discussion aspect, as most panels and debates about the many-worlds theory possess; it's getting to that point and enduring what we must endure that gets in the way of the ultimate reward, which is discussing and sharing our deepest, most personal thoughts.

So often critics and moviegoers judge a film based on expectations. What I have found is that expectations almost always (as in all of life) lead to some level of frustration (Christmas day is rarely better in reality than in expectation and hope). Such is the case with this film. Don't expect Casablanca and you won't be disappointed in the least. Just expect a very enjoyable evening with your significant other. This movie has grown on me since the first time I watched it. It's not strictly a "chick flick" but is a great romance - not just between a man and woman, however. It is a romance with a lifestyle in the south of France (the joys of a dream estate; great wine; tennis; etc.) and the beautiful Marion Cotillard. Sure, this is not Russell Crowe's best in terms of epic roles (e.g., Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, etc.) but it's not intended to be an intense role. He is great at what he does, regardless. This is a movie that is relaxing and peaceful and very enjoyable in a world that is full of upheaval. It brings me joy as it really is a heavenly picture of what I suspect everyone would want to experience. It is often difficult to rate a movie relative to others. Do I like this better than some action flick or a great drama? One of the ways I've come to understand how I really feel about a movie is, when it shows up on the guide, do I find myself switching to it and watching it? For example, when the Godfather comes on - I almost feel compelled to at least give it a 10 minute look (especially if it is near the beginning) and sometimes will watch it the whole way through - it's that good. While I would not put A Good Year in that category, it is a movie that I find myself continually watching when it comes on (at this date, I've probably seen it 7-8 times - and it is often on HBO - 4/28/08). A truly great escape. Vastly superior, for example, to Under the Tuscan Sun - which received much more notoriety when it came out.

Walk The Line is based on the true story of the late music legend Johnny Cash. The film shows Johnny growing up on a farm to becoming a musical success, his rocky marriage, his dependency on pills, falling in love with his singing partner June Carter and becoming one of the most popular musicians of all time. Winner of The BSFC Award for Best Actress (Reese Witherspoon, who plays June Carter) at The Boston Society of Film Critics Awards; The BFCA Award for Best Actress and Best Soundtrack at The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards; The Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy, Best Performance By An Actor In A Motion Picture Musical or Comedy (Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Johnny Cash) and Best Performance By An Actress In A Motion Picture Musical or Comedy at The Golden Globe Awards; The NSFC Award for Best Actress at The National Society of Film Critics Awards; The NYFCC Award for Best Actress at The New York Film Critics Circle Awards; The OFCS Award for Best Actress at The Online Film Critics Society Awards; The SFFCC Award for Best Actress at The San Francisco Film Critics Circle; The Satellite Award for Outstanding Actress In A Motion Picture Comedy or Musical and Outstanding Motion Picture Comedy or Musical at The Satellite Awards and The Actor Award for Outstanding Performance By A Female Actor In A Leading Role at The Screen Actors Guild Awards. Walk The Line has good direction, a good script, excellent performances by both Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, good original music, good cinematography, good film editing, good production design, good art direction, good set decoration and good costumes. The film is well made in just about every possible way and both Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon did their own singing for the film and each are so good in this film that they both deserve Academy Awards for their performances. They were two of the best performances I saw in a film from last year. The film is also very entertaining, full of spirit and energy, has an interesting and compelling story and is a fascinating look at these two lives of two music heroes. Some biographies do a lot for me and others don't have that big an effect on me. Walk The Line had a bit effect on me and I walked out of this movie loving every minute of it. Walk The Line is an excellent film and a great achievement from everybody involved in the film. One of the best films of 2005 and I'm sure that now all the studios who passes on this film are kicking themselves for doing so after seeing this great final product.

I think maybe it is. What do you do when one of your biggest franchises ever goes horribly wrong? No matter who you get to star in your film or direct it, it just doesn't work anymore. You do what Warner has done and you just start again - from scratch. Lets face it the only way this film was going to work or maybe survive (is a better word) is to either get Tim Burton & Michael Keaton back or to do what Warner has done and start again. As much as I rate 'BATMAN' & 'BATMAN RETURNS' maybe starting again was the right choice. Everything about this film was dynamic. From the character development, acting,plot,action sequences and script - well, it all worked for me. This wasn't a one character film. All the leading actors and actress go towards helping this become an enjoyable experience for anyone who sees it and a deserved success. Just one thing left to say...Bring on The Joker...

For all of those Austin Power's fans, Mike Myer's third installement of the loveable swingin' Brit will make another great fix. Chalk full of puns and reliably funny spoofs of classic films, Austin Powers in Goldmember, whose title is already a spoof off of the James Bond classic Goldfinger, will bring out the best of laughs in a night of movie going. Although some critics towted Goldmember's jokes as overdone and the new character's unnecessary, apart from some choppy bridges in the script which seem to be there to move the script in some direction, the jokes seemed genuine and effortless. A lot of what was found hysterical and whitty in the first Austin Powers and in its sequel were matched and fleshed out even further in the latest. Verne Troyer as mini-me and Seth Green as Dr. Evil's son, Scott Evil, were explored more deeply and as a result the "father-son bond" which has been explored this summer was brought out here as well. New characters Floxxy Cleopatra, played by Beyonce Knowles, was a great addition, as she easily wins as Austin's most supportive female counterpart (shying away from the ditsy Barbie doll image scultped by Felicity Shagwell in The Spy Who Shagged Me). Michael Caine as Niegl Powers is as enjoyable as it can be to see Caine as a swingin' superficial father, and Austin as his new character Goldmember is cheeky but more enjoyable to watch than Fat Bastard. Overall Mike Myer's latest sequel to Austin Powers is as enjoyable as one could expect. Although this movie appears to have more of its script centered on making spoofs of classic dramas and films to bring it some depth, the swingin' attitude and laughs are still enough to make this a film to see in the theater.

The movie has a great beginning, great action/fight scenes, kinda abuse of CGI, but of course you would expect this from a hero movie.For be a hero movie it brings something a bit "different" than other ones, not sure what exactly is but it is :pIt will be a solid 8 if they did not screw up with the lame plot twist but probably comics is same s*** so not sure; im not a true fan so...And for last, the jokes were pretty bad, typical PG-13 American humor.Gal gadot acting and voice were "something"...

FOUR STARS OUTA TEN! Like the classic Twilight Zone Episode "To Serve Man," this film isn't what the trailers, Golden Globes, and Academy Awards want you to believe. I'm 60 and remember Abscam and the seventies. Even with that background knowledge, the film didn't engage me, or move me, or even make me laugh. It was grim, stupid, and boring. My teenage daughter texted the whole time. We had seen the clever trailers during the summer, most focusing on Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. In retrospect, the trailers were conning us to think it was another Silver Linings Playbook. The trailers certainly did not convey this dreck of a film. The pacing was agonizingly slow and should be studied in film schools as how to NOT do pacing. There was no protagonist and that should be studied in film school as how to NOT emote any sympathy for any character. The acting by Amy Adams was intriguing but we did not wear braless, low cleavage outfits ALL THE TIME in seventies so the wardrobe people got it all wrong. It's insane that Amy Adams won the Golden Globes best actress award over Dame Judi Dench in Philomena or Emma Thompson in Saving Mr. Banks. Also insane is the over-the-top scene-shredding acting by Jennifer Lawrence actually won Best Supporting Actress. More inexplicable is this flick winning the Golden Globes Best Picture over Saving Mr. Banks, Philomena, Catching Fire, Dallas Buyer's Club, Blue Jasmine, Twelve Years A Slave, and Captain Phillips. The Foreign Press Association got it all wrong and if they give awards to a movie of this caliber then they are tools of Big Hollywood who's purpose is to give awards to up and coming actors so movies can make a mint on the next mediocre flick they churn out with the same up and coming actors. The only bright spots in the film are Jeremy Renner and Said Yaghaoui. Otherwise - pffft. The film is just meh.

I saw this in a big modern cinema in Melbourne and the sound was amazing. There were moments when my seat trembled so I hope you get to see it in a good theatre too.The film followed the book pretty closely, leaving out some singing (thank goodness), some Frodo-Sam moments (a shame) and the whole Saruman-in-the-Shire bit. The undead army storyline differed from the book but improved upon it, but the victory celebrations were a little weak, considering the 10 hours or so of conflict.My main criticism is with the blue screen night scenes where the actors were overlit. A small quibble in what is otherwise an exhilarating end to the trilogy.

Well, your friendly neighbourhood superhero is back! Its a different time now for Peter Parker as Spider-Man now becoming an icon,hero and idol for the people of New York. Consequently, it makes Parker become egoistic and arrogant and thus lead to many conflicts that he need to overcome as a human and a hero.The good aspects about this film are : 1-The action sequences are stylish, brilliantly done and intense as hell. You need to see to believe it! The used of CGI here deserve an applause.2- For a superhero flick, it balance its heart-pumping action scenes and well written drama with flair.3- The creation of Sandman and Venom are very memorable and astounding.4- J. Jonah Jameson and the Maître d' (brilliantly played by Bruce Campbell) really steal every scenes their in! Pure classic comedy moment.5- The ending. A bit cliché but still sum up the trilogy quite nicely. It also provide hints that the future of this franchise is still bright.The negative aspects of this flick: 1- The pacing. It felt rush ( not as smooth as Spider-Man 2) and there is little character development, especially from the villains. I felt for Dr.Ock from spider-man 2 far more than Sandman and Venom combine. The beautiful Gwen Stacy doesn't contribute much to the film. A waste of time for her actually. They should save this girl for the next film to produce more tension for Parker and Mary Jane.2-Lots of crying and disco dancing. The scene in the club, where Parker (his dark side) expose his talent in dancing ( Fez from That 70's Show comes to my mind immediately when i watched this scene)is overlong. They should just cut it a bit and add more character development.3-The climax. It so predictable and the dialogues from the female reporter are cringe-inducing . " Oh, the brutality." Enough said.Overall, its still an enjoyable movie. I enjoyed it better than Spider-Man 1 but I think it cannot top the brilliant of Spider-Man 2. I hope if there is a Spider-Man 4, there should stick to one villain in that movie. It really makes all the different.

i have been waiting to see this film for 9 months..as i never went to see it in the cinema..now i wish i had to have.. from the very moment the film opens you know its going to be good.having read the 'Two Towers Book' after being blown away by the Fellowship..and i hate reading books..i couldnt wait to see how the film would compare with the book...i must admit if youve read the book..its hard not to nit pick your way throuigh the film..but its still a fantastic film...after buying the DVD i must say that the extras are quite poor..but i will be waiting to buy the 'Special Extended version' in Nov as the documentaries are first class and with 4 Audio Comentries its a must have DVD..if there ever was a film to show off DVD and your 5.1 sound system this is the film...the only critiscism i have is that they leave out a section of the the 'Two Towers' book where Gollum leads them into a Cave to meet 'Her'this was amazing to read in the book..and was one of things i was looking forward to seeing..but it will be in the 'Return of the king' which i guess is ok.my advice is to enjoy the film and leave ur critic thoughts outside the room.10/10

This Movie wasn't even on my radar. I had dismissed it as a book of life copycat. Well it does deal with Dios dela muertos however the story, tone and visuals are completely different. Miguel (voiced by the lively Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming a musician like his ideal. His family however disapproves... strongly disapproves and wants him to follow in the family business of shoe making. In an act of rebellion he finds himself in the land of the dead and needs his family's blessing to get home. Thing is even his dead ancestors disapprove of his dream and want him to give it up. The graphics are stunning and the amount of detail given to everything is staggering, one of the characters. A scruffy skeleton by the name of Hector looked like he had a little scratch on his cheek but later in the movie when the lighting is better and his face is angled just right you notice that no, it's not a scratch. it's part of an interact design similar to the one on sugar skulls. He's just so scruffy that the design is really subtle and only shows when the the light hits him just right.The comedy is cut, the characters heart warming and it has some very down to earth characters (a granny that hits you with her shoe? reminds me of someone I actually know) To top it off all the skeletons and having a kid be in danger, real danger. had the kids in the audience's attention without scaring them. My theater was full of jumpy children but once the movie started not one left his seat or said anything but the occasion "ohhh.." "haha" while a lot of adults reached for their napkins to hide the tears. A beautiful movie and well worth sitting through the 20 minute frozen merchandise commercial that came before it. (please pick up the new Elsa dress for your five year old once you leave the theater!)

Pulp Fiction. Smashing. If there is a film bucket list - this is on it. It's an absolute mind-blower, and for Marvin, literally.Pulp Fiction is by far one of the most memorable films for my generation. Quentin created a masterpiece, a classic before it had time to be one.The actors are perfect for the characters they play. First off, Samuel L Jackson is a legend. His character, 'Jules' is a perfectly crafted chap. With his gritty, blunt and exceptionally memorable lines he is one of, if not, the best character.As for Travolta he manages to create a wicked man. Not only in a sheer unrighteous manner, but as a good man. He is an outright villain.Altogether, the cast have made an awesome mixture of grit and steel, meat and bone, and fuel to fire in this savage concoction of twisted tales. A must see.

I have been monitoring the comments on IMDB since this movie was released. This movie is so terrible that I feel it is my moral obligation to continue to post reminders.You have been warned. It's three hours of YOUR life that you will NEVER, EVER get back. Don't do it!

It took them four tries but the park is finally open for business, but with the short attention span of people today the park has to bring back a new extinct spices annually to keep up with the Internet. This time however with pressure coming down form a large conglomerate, the park creates a new breed of animal. Oops!This movie was Bigger and better than the other Jurassic Parks. Technology created a film far larger in scale. The dinosaurs were scarier in this one. It really proves that humans and prehistoric animals don't mix.If you're a fan of the franchise, the movie works as a sequel by bringing back characters who were literally overdone extras in the first movie.And of course what would a park be without the raptors. There moments were other dinosaurs try to take their spot on top of the cool chain (namely the T-Rex) but noting compares to them.Fantastic time at the park.

First, I want to start off this review by saying that I was a loyal DC Comics fan when I was younger so I tend to show favoritism to shows that stay true to the comics. The first 2 seasons of this show were great. Of course there were some filler episodes as is the case with shows that run a full length of 23 episodes in a season. One of the reasons why the miniseries format on Cable and streaming services are of higher quality- less episodes so the writers can be more creative and don't have to spend 23 episodes to build to a conclusion at the end of the season. But even with all those challenges, Arrow was able to be a GREAT show with all those episodes for the first 2 seasons. At the beginning of season 3, the writers lost themselves. It seems as if their creativity ran out and plot lines and episode villains were recycled. The desperation of these writers to gain back the respect of their audience has lead to departure of lead characters which surely had tarnished this show's quality forever. This show is currently on season 4 and I truly believe there is no going back. I give this show a 6 because the first 2 seasons deserved a 9 out of 10 because of the quality- the last 2 seasons deserved a 4. You can make the argument that Arrow was the show that paved the way for shows like Daredevil, The Flash, and Jessica Jones because of the quality in the first 2 seasons. That is no longer the case. What a shame...

Its funny seeing all the Austin spots in this movie, the old IBM where the Domain is now, the shooting over near Culvers. Me and friends haven't figured out where the Apartments are...anyone have a clue? We thought they might have been in South Austin, like Congress area. We were also wondering what other Austinites love this flick? It was great seeing a lot of old Austin pre 01 invasion. The Lamar shots were great, and anyone have an idea where the cleanup site was based? This is just one of those quirky movies like Revenge of the Nerds that you either saw in the theater, or you drank and smoked some stuff just laughing your as s off. I didn't get to see this in the movies but had the chance to grab a used VHS of it back in the day.

So, the long awaited Prometheus has finally hit the big screens for all those Alien and Scott fans. I myself could not wait to see this, here it is, I'm excited, and ready to see what Ridley has to deliver.Well, it certainly did not deliver. As an Alien fan myself, I went into the cinema with a clear head and talked myself out of thinking about the first two films. Never have I been more disappointed. I don't quite know what Mr Scott was up to whilst writing this piece of nonsense but he certainly wasn't thinking about the casting of characters, the music, the story or the dialogue.The opening of the film was a little confusing but hey, that's what happens in films, you start off not really knowing what is going on but it's okay, because this usually becomes explained throughout the film, doesn't it? apparently not. Prometheus is not intelligent, it's fast paced, and the characters are so unbelievably stupid you've got to wonder why they were chosen to go on this trillion dollar mission to a planet that may or may not have life form and that may or may not have created us humans.It's utterly ridiculous in many ways. You know when you were a kid and it's a Sunday night and you've just remembered that you have some homework that needs to be given in first thing Monday morning? You rush, writing and writing, not even thinking about what you are putting down on that paper, you finish, don't read it, say 'that'll do' and hand it in. Well Scott is that kid and I am the teacher marking his piece of paper with a big, disappointing F.Just to warn you, there will be a sequel to the prequel. Hang your camera up Ridley, you'll be doing everyone a favour.

One of the interesting things about the Three Colors trilogy is that each of them uses color in a different way: Bleu saturates the screen with a rich and vibrant tone of many different colors, Blanc keeps the use of color a bit more undertoned (I believe that's mostly because of the limits of the use of white), while Rouge covers the screen in many different shades and hues of the one color, red.It's almost dizzying at first but eventually very comforting. After a while the different shades of red take on a warm and life-giving comfort, almost like being held securely in the womb. This is kind of at odds with the drama, but shows interestingly the tendency the characters have to keep themselves mostly indoors rather than walk around the world at large. This has its own meaning when placed in context to the ending, and also the strange love that occurs between two characters that almost never meet on screen and the strange love of two characters that spend a lot of time together.I find this movie also very interesting in how it deals with law. Even though it seems arbitrary to connect it with the Dekalog episode that went on to become A Short Film about Killing, there's something similar in the two works' view of justice, mostly a sense that the pure and naive can be blind to the future they may decide.The ending of this film is, I consider, it's only weak point. The pointed connection with the other films and the expected meeting of the two future lovers feels not only contrived, but also obvious. However, it's at least satisfying enough to bring closure to the trilogy and to Kieslowski's career, though once again it feels unfortunate he couldn't have graced us with a few more works before being gone for good.--PolarisDiB

Jennifer (Megan Fox) is the hot girl popular cheerleader, and Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is the geeky plain-Jane sidekick bff. Chip (Johnny Simmons) is Needy's nice boyfriend. They live in Devil's Kettle which is named after the waterfall that drains into a bottomless hole. One night they go to the local dive bar to listen to a band headed by Nikolai (Adam Brody). The bar burns down, and a compliant Jennifer follows Nikolai off into the night. Then Jennifer shows up at Needy's house all bloody and crazed spewing out black bile. Next day Jennifer shows up at school and starts killing his schoolmates.The script is chalk full of writer Diablo Cody's dense wild dialog. Megan Fox does some of her best work in this movie. However I find several problems in this film. Director Karyn Kusama isn't able to create a scary horror. The fact is Kusama doesn't have much experience in the genre. This is no Girlfight and the comedy doesn't always work. At least she has a bit of experience with action in Æon Flux. And starting the movie with the ending already puts it in a deficit. Half of the excitement of a horror movie is that people can die. The movie starts by telling the audience that Needy is going to survive. Then there is Amanda Seyfried being cast as the plain nerd sidekick. She's way too hot to pull it off. It's a close call for me, but there are slightly more good than bad.

The Franklin Scandal. Larry King. This program is by far one of the best "fictional" broadcasts relating to child abductions.Chiefs, a 1983 series was the first. In a twist of irony one of the leads/actors in that series was, and is a child molester. I won't give his name but if you search for Chiefs the series on YouTube you can see the series. It's chilling.It was also the TV series that set standards for sexual innuendo or more importantly the crime of child kidnapping as a subject that had and has been ignored for far too long.This series is almost a carbon copy of the Franklin Savings and Loan scandal of the late '80s. But with a somewhat happy ending. I suggest you get the book(s) regarding the Franklin scandal from just about any e-book service. You can also see the quashed doc. that the Discovery Channel commissioned. It's a rough cut episode but telling.

Do not be put of by some people who have reviewed this movie. I had no idea of the plot or story line of this movie and was pleasantly surprised by the whole concept of it. There are no car chase scenes no shoot outs and no scenes of blood and guts spilling out just a very very good story line well told and acted. As far as quality of performance from the actors 8 out of 10, plot 8 out of 10, direction 8 from 10. Jackson does well with a very difficult story to screen transformation. There appears to be an agenda by some to rubbish this movie why? I know not. Judge for yourselves and try not to take to much notice of wannabee critics. These people appear to revel in doom and gloom. GET A LIFE we are only on this planet a very short time.

A kid's bedroom full of toys comes to life when humans aren't around; each toy, both new and retro-vintage, has his or her own individual personality, and they're all thrilled to meet the new member of the pack, birthday present Buzz Lightyear, who just may usurp Sheriff Woody in their pre-teen owner's heart. Disney/Pixar computer-generated cartoon has witty writing and incredible visuals to spare, though some scenes are heavy with chatter and the climactic race to catch up to a moving van is stretching things, even for a kid's picture. Still, some of the lines (which fly by at top speed) are very sharp and funny, and the star-voices (particularly Tim Allen's as Buzz) are uncanny. **1/2 from ****

The elephant man is an almost immediately engaging movie based almost entirely on true events and people (and is fairly accurate as far as my knowledge of the actual story goes). The story is indeed quite a sad one which the fact that it was shot in black in white, and just the overall feel of the movie doesn't help. If you upset easy have tissues handy. I thought the acting was right where it should have been and was overall really good, especially for the elephant man. The only thing I could be somewhat skeptical on is that for some it may seem to move a little to slow and not really pick you up as the movie does draw a lot on having empathy and sympathy for John Merrick (the elephant man). Its a very emotional movie and to me you kind have to be in the mood to watch it. So if your not up for an emotional drawing movie it may not be for you, or at least not at the time. The meaning and undertones of the movie is a statement about society and how we react to things, the true meaning of beauty, how we think of things, and to me how terrible people can be to others who are different. It simply is a great movie, a classic that really should be sat down and watched at least one good time.

I'm 16 and I just took my 10 year old cousin to see it and neither of us really enjoyed it at all. The reason of this I feel is because of Bernard not being there. I feel that Bernard just added a kick of flavor to both the Santa Clause 1 and 2 and without him it appears to me the magic just sort of vanished mostly because Tim and David made an excellent team of comedy and now that David is gone and there's no Bernard the funny seems to fade away.The bloopers were not that funny either and about 10 minutes into the movie my cousin started asking me "Is this over yet?" and "Wheres Bernard?" As a matter of fact a lot of kids and parents were saying it wasn't the same without him.So if you and your kids can handle it without Bernard in it and Bernard is not your kids favorite character then go see it,But if your kids or you LOVE Bernard and he is everyones favorite then don't go because you will miss him.

A gripping and compelling film that honestly really grosses me out, to the point that I couldn't eat after watching it. If you like nihilistic and graphic films with a strong cast (Brad Pitt's box-related shrieking notwithstanding) then Se7en is the film for you, even if it wasn't the film for me.

I wanted to like this movie having been a fan of Bridget Jones, Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth but that would be too much to ask. Richard Curtis has written and directed an awful movie. Don't waste your money! The best parts of the movie are shown in the commercial; everything else is rubbish. I expected more and was quite disappointed. Looks like Richard forgot to love this movie. It's not funny, it's not romantic, it's too long and it's misogynistic. They make fun of women especially those who are slightly overweight and older. Easy target. Why not make fun of bald or balding men? There seems to be an abundance of them on both coasts. Seriously, there were some cute moments but they don't make the whole worthwhile. In fact, there are some downright depressing parts. Skip the movie and watch Bridget Jones again or About a Boy - much better than this.

David Fincher has seen the millenium out in style by giving us a classic movie to watch during the next one. Supurb cinematography, plot, humour, acting, casting. Do not miss this film..but see it quick before someone spoils it for you. DO NOT READ ANY SPOILERS! Trust me.Brad Pitt confirms his stature again by matching..even surpassing.. the "edgy character" performances he gave in Seven and 12 Monkeys. I cannot praise this film highly enough..it has restored my faith in movies after what has been an abysmal year to date.

Greetings, dear art lovers! This is a complex movie for art lovers indeed because today not all films deserve to be called art. Several at start disconnected stories, set in different times, including the future /a high tech sci-fi Korea/, were represented and polished in such a professional way, that I was thinking: NO WAY IT CAN BE SO BREATHTAKING. The combination of ideas about human fate, the soul, the danger of an anti utopia future and (last but not least)the notion of how fun and how smart an ordinary grandpa might turn out to be, is indeed original and worth seeings. This move has everything in it, that is why it has no genre. It is supernatural,super complex, superbly deep. If you are a 16 year old with a developed mind you'd shout : Dude, that is the coolest movie I've seen lately! Then you would ask for your dad's advice. You would ask how he interprets all this and you would think about it seriously. ...which does not ruin the fun of course.I am 28 and I wish I can go back in time to watch this masterpiece when I was younger,say 18. I wonder what reaction it would have stirred at that time. Are you not curious how young people feel about Cloud Atlas which is such an "adult" film ?

Late in "Shutter Island," Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Dennis Lehane's head-spinner of a novel, weary U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and the Warden (Ted Levine) of the Ashecliffe Institute (which rests on the titular isle) share a conversation on God, nature, and violence while in a moving jeep. Scorsese ingeniously blocks the scene so that all we see are the two men conversing and the spring foliage passing by, as if our characters are being propelled toward the inevitable not by a motor vehicle, but by fatalistic machinations beyond their control.Applying decades of film-making experience to a genre he's less known for (save for the 1991 remake of "Cape Fear"), Scorsese uses this initial element of surprise to, well, SURPRISE us. Continuously. With modern thrillers relying on fickle, manipulative twists as the sole justification for their being, "Shutter Island" (which faithfully ports over a staggering majority of Lehane's characters, plot, and dialog) digs deep into the psychosis of its characters, using the isolated island and its damaged inhabitants as a greater metaphor for a world in which madness reigns (the film is set in 1954, subtly using the Red Scare to extend this theme).In the opening shot, a ferry slowly emerges from a white, all-encompassing fog; on board are Daniels and his new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), two Marshals who have been assigned to locate Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer), a murderess who has inexplicably escaped from Ashecliffe. Through a series of imposing, wide-angle shots and knowingly ominous musical cues, Scorsese sets an overwhelming tone of dread and isolation before our protagonists even get off the boat, and almost sustains it for "Shutter Island"'s entirety. The island is populated by a brilliantly-chosen collection of character actors (most leaving big impressions with only a few lines of dialog): Ben Kingsley (as the evasive Dr. Cawley), Max von Sydow (advocate of brain-surgery-as-clinical-cure Dr. Naehring), John Carroll Lynch (as head of island security), and Levine are quite smooth as administrators and law enforcement, conveying unarticulated jagged edges through stoic stares and subtle mannerisms. The patients themselves range from the seemingly normal males and females of Wards A and B, to the scar-faced terrors of the penitentiary-like Ward C (including Jackie Earle Haley and Elias Koteas).While Scorsese's genre-crossing film-making skill is impossible to deny here (and is indeed the dominant driving force of the movie), "Shutter Island" marks another notch in the ladder of Leonardo DiCaprio's career. His turn as the penniless, handsome artist in the astronomically overrated "Titanic" really did nothing for me, and it wasn't until 2006's "The Departed" (his third collaboration with Scorsese) that I felt he cemented his leading-man potential. Here, DiCaprio invokes the rugged look and swagger of a '50s celebrity icon; what impresses, however, is the fearlessness with which he probes the psychologically damaged Daniels (as revealed in vivid World War II flashbacks and surreal, grisly dream sequences), going to dark corners that separate his acting skill from his boyish good looks."Shutter Island" does such a fine job of keeping the audience unsettled, with the notion that our feet are never firmly glued to any sort of relatable reality, that the climactic events come as a slight disappointment; while Laeta Kalogridis' script is an excellent example of a literary adaptation done right, it is Lehane's key revelation that comes as a letdown. However, credit must be given for presenting it in a manner that coalesces so well with all that has come before that it enriches, rather than cheapens, the film overall. And with a thriller as classy as "Shutter Island," that's merely a minor crime.

... let alone two in a row! You need a certain sweetness in your approach to the holiday season, and he just doesn't have it. Like in the scene where he uses the snow globe and sees his girl have a 'meet cute' with a guy she's giving a ticket to, I assume you're meant to feel sorry for him, and then practically the next scene has him dancing and whooping it up with the elves?! One scene is a perfect fit for Vaughn, and the other isn't, leading to lots of ideas assembled in a way that don't merge very well into a cohesive whole.I understand that the intention was to contrast his caustic frat-boy attitude with the more pure evocation of childhood innocence that Christmas represents. The issue is, Vince is neither as misanthropic as Billy-Bob Thornton nor as carefree as personalities like Dudley Moore or Will Ferrell, so the tone of the film falls between two stools. Even worse, when the film moves away from the main character, the uneven treatment begins to affect the supporting cast as well. It becomes almost boring and bureaucratic at points, specifically in its uninspired handling of the Spacey and Giamatti characters.Everybody has to restrain their usual personality in order to fit into the basic template of what feel-good seasonal entertainment is thought to be; whether it be Saint Nick switching from paragon of virtue to snowball fighter at immediate requirement, or Clyde suddenly joining the good guys because he gets his Superman cape (since Spacey was channelling Lex Luthor again for the whole time, it wasn't hard to see that one coming... ) it all felt cloying and schmaltzy and not true to the performers own instincts. Why hire people if you expect them to subdue what they're naturally good at?! Weisz, Richardson and Banks fare no better, either. Each lady is a talented individual in their own right, but they're also given virtually nothing to do.As a result, despite a first rate cast, this is a movie that I'm afraid doesn't deliver much in the way of glad tidings or good cheer.

I saw Sense and Sensibility the other day and I must say it was a very entertaining movie. The costumes and the scenery were beautiful. The acting was flawless and the ever great Kate Winslet took my breath away. Her interpretation of Marianne was flawless. I do believe she should have won the Oscar and the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress instead of Mira Sorvino who gave the performance of her career but Katie truly shined. However, Kate did manage to pick up the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress and the BAFTA Award, which is the British equivalent to the Academy Award. She'll win an Oscar eventually...as of 2005 she's already been nominated 4 time: 1. Sense And Sensibility - Best Actress In A Supporting Role (1995) 2. Titanic - Best Actress In A Leading Role (1997) 3. Iris - Best Actress In A Supporting Role (2001) 4. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind - Best Actress In A Leading Role (2005)

This movie was bad, Perhaps one of the worst movies of all time.a. Poor fight scenes with no credibility? Check. b. Massive plot holes? Check. c. Weak characters? Check. d. Laughable special effects? Check. e. Overly long? Check. f. Clichéd acting and scenes. Eg... character a gives character b. a big lecture then dramatically turns and walks off? This scene repeated twice in this movie. g. Anything left to the imagination or was the whole thing totally see through? Check. Zero subtlety.But as criminal as it was to make such a rubbish movie, even more criminal is the fake reviews that could have not other purpose than to get people flooding into the cinemas, renting the DVD etc buying it for Xmas before the general population realizes how bad this movie stank.I have a friend who was in a scene that was cut from this movie. He was so disappointed at first... till it was released... then he was relieved.IMDb. You are being scammed. This movie blew.

If I were asked "How do you describe the acting, the art of Robert De Niro?" I would surely suggest to be watched Cape Fear. His method acting, forces the limits of personal acting, especially in dialogs with Leigh Bowden. He is teaching, demonstrating everybody (every actor!) how to reflect a personality, a mood to the face. When you watch him, you realize that why he is a legendary actor. Not only De Niro, but all the artists in the movie are showing a theatrical playing. Basic similarity between them is that they're all thrilled. The flaw of Sam Bowden in his past covers all the characters with a threatening atmosphere. Anyway, Sam Bowden is the cursed character of the movie. At the end, we understand, extract that the American family survives not only for Max Cady is evil (he is partly right a bit in a sense), but also for they don't have to bear the outcomes of clumsiness, or pedantry of a counselor and the Max Cady dies due to outrageous revenge. Sam Bowden is a pettifogger now.

Silly, but with a serious mummy and his pals. Plagues, human sacrifices, sand storms, treasure, curses, a beautiful girl and an army of the undead. I loved it. Great sets. Great effects.Mummies galore.What are you expecting, Shakespeare?

the movie could have been better. there are many reviews here which talk about + of the movie, so let me just talk about what the movie is missing. the movie is liking watching a documentary or a quick summary of the results of all the races took place between Niki and James. character build up, there is nothing about the background of the two character. In one scene Niki's dad says he don't want him to race and thats the end of it. where did Niki got love and talent for racing, we don't know. where did he became such an expert on cars, we don't know.James, how did a drunk playboy become the best driver out there, we don't know. who trained him or did he just woke up drunk and said, f**k yeah i will drive the car in the best car race ever and win the title.Niki goes through s**t accident and he is back on race, which is total madness, nothing been said what was that, which motivated him to take such pain and come back. Sure, he had love for race, but the pain and the level of accident he went through was so big and it was not well justified.other then James and Niki, all other characters are under developed. there is nothing romantic in the film. both James and Niki meet some hot random chick and they are married or in love in next and nothing has been shown the marriage or personal life of two character. Olivia Wilde goes on a ski trip and ends with another man, only 1 scene was shown to reflect the difference between a married couple. heck married couple have 10 fights every day, and that was not even a fight.at the end, i felt like i was watching two racers competing for something. not much detail was given why 2.3 second is so critical when in everyday life we don't even think about 2.3 second. i agree in race every second counts, but how the 2.3 second was such a moving number. so, in the end if you know James and Niki, know all about F1 race, and wanted to see quick summary of their race life from that era, this is good movie. if you want to know them, what bring them to racing ground and why they were ready to put their life or why they were better then 10 other drivers on the ground, then in my case i had to go and read Wiki article on them. good luck for yours.

This movie came highly recommended by a friend in the movie industry whose own tastes run to foreign, esoteric and intellectual. He described it as one of the best movies he's seen recently. With this in mind, I was very excited about seeing the film and, also, expecting an awful lot. I was disappointed.First, the entire film hinges on an untenable postulate: an adorable, chubby, sweet, kind little girl from Alberquerque (Olive, played magnificently by Abigail Breslin) has won, by default, a beauty pageant and been invited to compete in the Little Miss Sunshine competition in California. Her coach is her grandfather, a heroin snorting, randy old man with a penchant for loud shirts, leather vests and T&A magazines. The rest of her family has never seen her routine and has had no part of designing her hair, make-up and costumes.The Hoover family is entirely dysfunctional but each of the individual members is engaging in his or her strangeness. Indeed, these idiosyncratic characters are the movies strength and salvation. My favorite was Dwayne, the 15 year old son who is fascinated with Nietzche, has taken a vow of silence until he attains his objective of getting into the Air Force Academy to become a jet fighter pilot and is, at heart, a great kid.The family speeds toward California in a decrepit bright-yellow VW bus that is used for rather clichéd comic purposes, including attracting a clichéd, potbellied, red-neck motorcycle cop who ultimately lets them off when he finds grandpa's T&A magazines in the back of the bus. I won't tell you what he, bigoted redneck stereotype that he is, fails to see right before his eyes in the process.In California the Hoovers find that the pageant is really for air-brushed, powdered, big-haired 7 year olds dressed to look like Las Vegas showgirls (this was realism, not humor). The audience of the pageant is filled with other-America stereotypes, including one 400 pounder woman and a tattooed biker who is a follower of these shows and clearly comes for the bumps and grinds.Then the ending! How merry. What a charming moral (I hear the director defended the stale jump-start-the-bus bits as a symbol of the family pulling together). Gag me with a spoon. But I guess this is Hollywood's vision of wholesome.

Dr. Heiter, an older man who is thin as a rail, drugs and abducts a truck driver. Two young women (Lindsay and Jenny) on a road trip through Germany get a flat near his house. Unfortunately, they accept his offer to get out of the rain. He drugs them as well.They awaken to find themselves secured (tied-up) in the surgeon's basement with the poor truck driver. Dr Heiter furthers his explanation of his plans for them. His renown more or less explains his artwork: he became famous by successfully separating conjoined twins. After his retirement, he attempted an inverse experiment: joining three dogs together, end to end, so that they would have one digestive tract. This failed, but Heiter wishes to try again, this time with humans. Sadly, Heiter did not investigate why the first experiment failed.Heiter's plans go forward with some bumps in the road. For instance, he is rather cavalier about leaving sit the vehicles of the people he has kidnapped, all near his home.So, will Heiter succeed, or will the victims find a way to escape?Fraught with logical problems and holes in the plot to the point where little if any of it made any sense. Also, the subject matter was disgusting without being horrifying. Suspense? None. Could one identify or empathise with any of the characters? Not really; the whole mess was just too unbelievable.

Right off at the start: A boring boring, disappointing movie. And much too long.And I just don't buy Brandon Routh as Superman. He looks like a Calvin Klein Model, like made of plastic. But he is definitely not Superman.The great Kevin Spacey is wasting his talent.I love Parker Posey ever since her performance in Blade 3, but she deserves better than to appear in a sleeping pill like this.All in all, I did not find the story at all interesting. It was much too slow paced and sometimes confusing.I rather see X-Men again and again before ever watching this one again.

It Can be a Spoiler - So read it after you see the movie! Travel in time is not a new topic. There are many movies based on it, some of them excellent works (such as the Jacket or Butterfly effect), but Dejavu has some logical problems. The movie, without the scenes about monitoring and traveling in time, is in no way a fantasy or Sci-Fi. But the very time traveling issue is a fantasy element which is not logically supported by any proper background. On the other hand, if such a facility exists, many more important applications are there for it and the movie could have chosen a stronger application for this. I can also mention it as a weakness that if such a machine uses so much energy and its usage causes black out in the city, why the creators have not foreseen a proper power plant to supply the required energy? Another point is that such a technology is more strategical than it is put in a single person's disposal so that he, at his own discretion and after the working hours can put it into operation all by himself, not needing any technical coordination with other departments or any permission from higher authorities.That the organization having the facility is not interested enough to do such an experiment before a police officer talks them into doing it shows a terrible lack of incentive and sort of carelessness which is not justifiable for any person or entity having such a technology. But As I mentioned earlier, it's really amusing and Denzel Washington plays fine(he did much better in "Man on Fire" though).

Hollywood is losing ideas. We already know that. Now we are stuck having remakes, reboots, & prequels. And what's worse, most of these prequels are hardly connected to the original film & sometimes they say it's a reboot. The film? It can be entertaining in some parts, but mostly it's a wooden & clichéd sci-fi story. Convoluted from the original Planet of the Apes series but like they say, This could be a reboot. Any new ideas, Hollywood?The movie is totally disconnected from the original Planet of the Apes movies. It's obvious that they wanted to make another reboot of the series. They're losing ideas & wanted to improve some of the old classics. Rise of the Planet of the Apes doesn't want to show the true origin of the first series. I don't think Fox is still capable of making accurate prequels. It's just like X-Men First Class although X-Men is an enjoyable movie and it's necessary to tell its story.The story here can be interesting but it ends up being generic & predictable. Science goes wrong, Humans are evil, Too much sappiness, & ends with a predictable and somewhat exhausting action climax. Since none of the apes are real, The CGI looks impressive though. The main ape's actor, Andy Serkis, only spoken few lines in this movie but the motion he provides to the character is remarkably amazing. He's an expert to these motion capture characters. James Franco ends up being a wooden character. What's the point of Freida Pinto's character? Tom Felton is playing Draco Malfoy again & this time he's teasing Apes. At least John Lithgow gave some emotional moments.Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an altered, predictable, & unnecessary prequel. The filmmaking has already been evolved but still no revolution. The studio is out of ideas & we are getting these unnecessary prequels that suddenly appearing as a reboot. Even the film itself is not good. I noticed that most people liked it maybe because the CGI is quite amazing and the motion capture performance of Andy Serkis nails most of the film. But really, this is unnecessary & ridiculous. The ending also has an ambition for a sequel. I guess these prequels are deceiving reboots.

I think this is a good movie for a few reasons. The first one is the the plot of the movie is interesting. The story about the creating of dinosaurs and the tourist attraction, Jurassic Park is a very new and interesting idea. The point of using genetic engineering to make dinosaurs is interesting. I think this may be a possible way to make dinosaurs in real life. The second reason that I like the movie is the events in it are very exciting.For example, when the plane that Dr. Grant took wanted to leave the island Sorna, the spinosaurus, a kind of dinosaurs which is bigger and more fierce than tyrannosaurus Rex, appeared and stood on the runway. The plane bottom flew into the back of the spinosaurous and crashed into the jungle. The spinosaurous followed them into the jungle and wanted to eat them. Then they met a Tyrannosaurus Rex when they were escaping from the spinosaurous.The two dinosaurs fought together and Dr. Grant leaded them ran away under the fighting. One of the other exciting parts is the student of Dr. Grant, Billy, who has also came with them, stole two of the velociraptors' egg's so the velociraptors surrounded them for getting back the eggs. At last Dr.Grant used a tool to pretend the sound of velociraptors and made them left. One more reason that I like the movie is the sight and sound effects. The movie had done a very good job on these and these made me feel very exciting. The roaring of the spinosaurous, the scary sound of the velociraptors, the skin of the Dinosaurs and some others also seemed real. If the full mark is ten, I will give this movie eight as it is a little bit short. Anyway it is still worth us a watch.

I enjoyed the books In a guilty pleasure kind of way but they were no great works of literature . I did wonder how on earth they might make it into a movie without it being a full on porno . I think the succeeded in getting the essence of the story without it being to graphic In fact maybe it was toned down a bit much to the point it wasn't even very sexy. I thought the leads were going to be terrible but I didn't come out hating them or the movie so that was a bonus. overall it was enjoyable but no wow factor I will see the next movies when they come out without dreading it to be the train wreck I was expecting.