Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

I wanted to see Pulp Fiction for a number of reasons, apart from the fact that everyone told me to watch it. I wanted to see if Tarantino was something beyond of what some told me as "a pig of violence" And indeed, the film is packed with guns, bullets and drugs all around, but all that is passed and accomplished by its mere feel. All movies have a feel, but there are few that set a standard like Pulp Fiction. A movie that, after watching, leaves you confused, punched and dizzy, with a dried throat and a big black smile on your face. Not even God knows how Tarantino did it, he created a new kind of black humor, and a touch that was later used in many ways, for other big ones like Anderson's Boogie Nights. This is one that I'll remind, it seemed to me like the kickoff point for so many other great stuff I had seen before, and it has make me see violence and blood in another way: If I hear twist I think John Travolta and Uma Turman, if I see a hand watch I see Bruce Willis, and I say to you all: I will never ever forget the "Royale with cheese" scene!! A movie that, you just watch and you see and live so more

This movie was great! It pays homage to the Terminator movies before it, the action sequences are exciting and fun and the one liners are pretty good. There are a few cheese-ball moments but it is to be expected with a PG-13 title. The actors do a great job with the characters and it is wonderful to see Arnold still has what it takes to play a physical role like this. My only experience with Jai Courtney is the Divergent series and it's nice to see that he can actually act. Also, Sarah Conner could not have been better cast, I'm not sure I'll be able to watch A Game Of Thrones the same again.I'm glad I saw this movie and I look forward to the rest of the trilogy. I'm also glad to see the Arnold still has it and this franchise still has life left in it. As long as these movies are made, I'll keep watching.

Grim subject matter aside, this is a jewel of a movie which I hope with every fiber of my being you will watch. Compassion, corruption, fear, violence, hate, love, integrity and honor are the highlights of this film. The world stands by while terrible things happen all the time. We have no choice sometimes. We're far away, politically disconnected, we feel powerless. The cognitive dissonance pounds our hearts at times.What chimes in my heart the most about this movie is that this is actually the sole theme of the movie. It is not overpowered by moral preaching, it does coerce you into feeling anything specific, it's purpose is simply to allow you to feel SOMETHING about what is happening; whether it be yesterday, 1994 Rwanda, or today with Syria. It gives you a road map and empowers you. It's incredibly inspiring. Words cannot explain.Sometimes, feeling something is the best you can do. Reflect, learn and try to be one of the good ones. Be a hero in your own little world. You do what you can do be good, at the cost of witnessing certain atrocities and being restricted in what you can do about it. Just do what you can, when you can. (I speak of the protagonist's role and not the world, in this particular situation, the world was most certainly not heroic) And sometimes, when you can do that, you may not know it at the time, but you become something bigger; a real hero. This is a movie about the dignity of fear, of monsters at every turn and above all else, it is a movie to help you define what it is to be a hero, a true real life hero. Not the MARVEL superhero kind, but those kind of people with hearts so big that they make you feel grateful to be human.In the very midst of hell happening on earth, the protagonist, brilliantly brought to life by Don Cheadle, feels the events and makes small decisions. That is all. And you watch him. This movie makes the world feel it. The moment of it. The smallness he feels and the enormity of the world at the same time. You feel it. It's a pure sentiment distilled down to its purest form and that is the very premise of the movie.Bad things happen, we try to be good, we try to be strong, we do what we can and keep our chins up. The beauty of being human is that you decide how to react to the world, in all its contrasting colors and beautiful madness, you too can find honor, valor, humility, integrity -- MEANING -- PURPOSE.What a brilliant shining beacon of light this movie was.... despite being at the same time a grimmest saddest and most harrowing foray into the darkness of the human spirit. All at the same time. A true masterpiece.I must note that the powerlessness I feel after watching this movie is a bit overwhelming, but it has sparked something in me. I am not very political, but my views have now been changed. I suspect the director and writer and actors would be pleased that I feel restless to go out into the world and do something good now.

I walked into this movie knowing almost nothing about the Getty empire or the particulars of this story. The trailers and the talent involved were the selling points for me so I'm happy to report that even though I went in blind, I didn't have any problems keeping up with the story. The premise is simple in which an oil tycoon's grandson is kidnapped to extort money for a terrorist organization. It's not the premise that makes this worth seeing, its what they do with it and how they build off of it that makes All the Money in the World worthwhile.Being based on a true story, there was material to mine in this story. I think they did a good job of showing characters that seemed out there as being realistic. I heard so many gasps in the theatre when John Paul Getty was shirking Gail or trying to haggle to get JP back. My thought during that was "wow, he's a terrible person but I could see someone with his wealth acting like that." People value different things and Getty is a corrupted person who doesn't understand what other people think is invaluable. I also liked how unapologetic Richard was over his actions, he's really good at his job and what he does for a living isn't very nice. Sure, JP was a little bratty but he sure got the message by the end. JP tells us how his family looks human, acts human but they aren't fully human. This movie gets how to show how wealth changes behaviour and why so many of the characters act unnaturally throughout the movie.This is another movie that uses the fact that its set in the past in a beautiful location to its full advantage. This movie pulls of the feat of making parts of Italy look gorgeous in some scenes and so grimy and seedy in others. Ridley Scott experiments with the cinematography, some early scenes are in black and white instead of colour. The transition between them is seamless and while it isn't always easy to understand, it looks cool. The costuming seems period accurate and the sterility in the visuals that Scott sometimes has is put to good use here.Other than Ridley Scott's slick direction and some excellent window dressing with the cinematography and the period piece trappings, the reason to see this is the excellent acting. Michelle Williams is underrated, I think everyone knows how talented she is but she's not the first actress you think of when you think of regular powerhouse performances. She's easily one of the top ten leading ladies working in drama right now and I think she could garner another Oscar nomination for her work here. I really liked Mark Wahlberg in this even if I was a little let down by his character (more on that later). He's very calm and collected and he's equally at ease when he's trying to comfort Gail or threatening communists. I actually wished we could have spent more time with his character and you can credit Wahlberg for that. The actor that's going to get the headlines from this though is Christopher Plummer. He deserves them though, he totally inhabits this larger-than-life character and he's interesting even at his most disgraceful. I know he had to come in as a replacement for Kevin Spacey but when you watch him, it's hard to imagine another actor doing as good of a job. He's definitely going to garner an Oscar nomination if not a win. I also want to credit Charlie Plummer as JP Getty III and Romain Duris as Cinquanta in their supporting parts. Charlie brings elicits sympathy for John Paul and his scenes with Romain make you care about their relationship even if its between a kidnapper and his victim. I don't have a ton of complaints with this movie. I wanted some more from some of the characters. They really setup Fletcher Chase as a bad@$$ former spy and I wanted to see more of him in his element. I don't need gunfights, just more of seeing him do what he does best. It seemed to me like there was more initially written for that character to do and it got cut out. I also would have liked a little more time with with Gail and John Paul III setting up their relationship after his father's disappearance. The other complaint is that the move drags in the middle with the long run time. I was fully invested in this movie at around the 1hr mark and there was a point where it stopped being this breathtaking thriller and started to coast.You have to admire Scott's devotion to this movie, he had to make serious changes on the fly just to keep this alive. I don't think this is the best Scott movie (he's made a lot of good ones, but I would still put The Martian ahead of this) but I think this is a beautiful and stylish thriller that doesn't lack for thrills or acting talent. Its absolutely worth seeing in a theatre and even if you don't recognize the story, you'll appreciate it still. I would actually put this somewhere in the range of 8-8.5/10 but I have to round down to an 8.

i've seen the trailer long time ago and at 1st sight, i've said to myself may be one day on DVD or else so i watched it today, because i'm a fan of G. Pearce, not all his work, anyway he died in the first 5 min.. i convinced myself to watch the other 2 hours....never again, the best thing i can think of, is, this ....thing make any other modern warfare movie a good one.Watch American sniper instead or, of course, one of the best movie ever made on the subject, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Black Hawk down etc..if the point was to show that they take care for the man next to them, Black Hawk down is thousand time far better if it was to show that war is dangerous.....and can make soldiers suffering in anyway, there are far better movies than this oneand if it was for shown a bomb disposal unit in Iraq, I feel sorry for them to be represented by that.nothing against the actor and their work, i think they have done what they can with their character but everything is inaccurate or completely stupidR. Fiennes as a special ops is killed 5 min. after they all fall into an ambush, OK, why not, he had been killed by a faster sniper than him, who killed 2 others before, so he is good right? A. Mackie takes on the Cal.50 and: '' sh..t bullets are jammed by blood, please clean it'' it'll take 10 min. to clean the ammo, the Iraqi sniper doesn't even fire once during this time waiting for what? get killed of course and so on...!well 1/10 because there is no 0

I liked it. I read some of the other reviews (there are several hundred). What do you go to the movies for? Excitement? Action? Special Effects? Everyone has a different agenda. I liked this film because it was both quite different than I expected and yet somewhat predictable. The DVD extended version is better than the theatrical one. Of course the Evil Queen has to die at the end, and that is the major weakness of the film, as she in supposed to be invulnerable, like Superman. Nothing can kill her. Yet,somehow, there is an element of "magic" in Snow White that allows her to stab the Queen to death(?) She interacts with the forest creatures and has the ability to regenerate flora and fauna. How? (This is not explained.) Also, I expected Snow White to be a little prettier! She looks tired after all the battle scenes! Anyway, there is a lot to this movie: The untold romantic story between Snow White and the Huntsman, the strange connection between the evil queen and her brother, the evil figure that emerges from the magic mirror (which reminds me of the liquid-guy from "Terminator 2"). The CGI is fantastic and flawless: The ogre, the dark forest, the fairyland. Most of the castles are CGI but look very real. They used "motion-capture" for a lot of it (the dwarfs, ogre) and it looks very convincing. I think that the people who didn't like this film saw a different movie than I did. Yes, it was long, but so was every part of "The Lord of the Rings". Faults: 1. Some elements of the film seemed too familiar: sucking the "life-force" out of people (a plot device used in all these movies: Life Force, Stardust, Hocus-Pocus). 2. The CGI generated battles are too familiar looking. 3. A "Joan of Arc" style ending with Snow White leading the charge is a bit over-the-top. How I wish I had seen this on a large movie theater screen. Warning: This is not a "kiddie" movie. PG-13 and they mean it.

when Pixar announced their idea for "Cars" (a world exactly like our own but inhabited by living cars instead of humans), I thought that the film was going to be an instant failure. Then, as the images of the new graphics and the plot outlines started to came out I was still unimpressed by them, seeing at how unoriginal the plot was and how everything seemed to be aiming for showing off their technical progress, my hopes for "Cars" were really low. I guess that's why I ended up liking it so much."Cars" is the story of a cocky, arrogant and very ambitious young racer named Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) who has become the new sensation in the racing circuit. During the trip towards the final race of the circuit (a race that would give him the Cup if he wins), he gets lost and accidentally ends up in a small forgotten town on Route 66 named "Radiator Springs". Without knowing how to return to the Highway and forced to repair the damage caused by his arrival, McQueen will discover the simple way of life of this quiet town and its inhabitants.Visually, the film is perfect; the computer animation has reached a point where it seems that the only limit is to create a human being, and I bet that Pixar is not too far from it. Light effects, water effects, reflection, chrome and other phenomena are represented with great detail surpassing everything Pixar had done before. However, this tale of a young and ambitious car living in the fast urban world and his clash with the simple and slower life of rural U.S. is nothing really new or original, and this is where the directors/writers John Lasseter and the late Joe Ranft make a difference."Cars" is a new version of a familiar old story. Sure, it is by no means an original story and it is very predictable, but the details added by the writers are what makes the film different. The lovable and different characters give soul to the apparently lifeless "Cars", and they make the difference in what otherwise would be a dull boring and predictable film. every character has been carefully detailed, not only visually, but also in their personalities, antics and voices. This care in the characterization department is what made "Toy Story" or Fox's "Ice Age" different among other animated films.The voice actors are very good, and it is noticeable the care taken in assembling the cast. Owen Wilson makes a very good McQueen, making him an arrogant, ambitious city boy; Paul Newman brings his experience and makes a wonderful Doc Hudson, Radiator Springs' mayor. Bonnie Hunt and Larry the Cable guy complete the cast and all of them are equally competent in their jobs. Their performances give the final touch to the film.As written above, the film has only one big detail that may turn off some viewers. Its plot is nothing really new or unseen, and it could be said that it is one of their least funny scripts. Sure, it touches an important subject, but a few more laughs could had helped the final product. However, credit must go to the writers, who have crafted a movie that will keep the kids interested even when it is not a laugh riot."Cars" may not be have a multi-awarded script or even an original plot, but it has a lot of heart, and it shows how much Lasseter and Ranft cared for the story. Despite its troubles, it is a fine film to take the children. If you keep the expectations low and relax a bit it will be a nice ride.

This movie started out so awkwardly, but within the first few minutes grew into hilarity! I don't understand why anyone is comparing it to The Hangover. It's not by the same people, so why even judge it based on that? Anyone who tells me they didn't laugh when she was trying to get that cop's attention should learn to just stay away from comedies. I will say that it is not a movie for kids... At all! But it is the perfect blend of sex, poop, friendship, alcohol, lesbians, cookies, cops, and puppies. The performances were also spot on! Kristen Wiig was absolutely hysterical, and Chris O'Dowell was so adorable! I found that Wendi and Ellie's characters were very underdeveloped.All in all I loved it. I can't wait to see it again when it's released on DVD.

What would you call someone who is bad-mannered, foul-mouthed, destructive, homophobic, unreasonable, and drunken who is a liar and an asshole? Probably not a superhero. Will Smith plays Hancock, a slacker with all those attributes who also has supernatural powers. Maybe you could call him a superzero--someone with the potential to be spectacular who falls far short.He's a reluctant hero for sure, who usually rises above his crassness only when forced to, and then leaves careless destruction in the wake of his heroics.He meets Ray (Jason Bateman), an optimistic PR man who thinks Hancock should change his image. Ray's wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), seems unconvinced. What follows is an unpredictable story about love and possible redemption. There are bad guys, of course, who complicate matters, but the resolution of this story feels messy and contrived. By the end of the film, viewers may feel like it was all just an origin story that served no purpose except to be the foundation for other real stories to follow. But who would want to emotionally invest in a hero that still feels less than realized, a temporary patchwork of questionable values?One feels that an opportunity has been missed. Imperfect heroes can be quite interesting if their story makes them lovable or compelling. Hancock strains to achieve either.

I have always been a fan of Ridley Scott and Thomas Harris and after Gladiator last year i was really looking forward to this sequel. And i actually liked the book Hannibal very much and i think that all the readers that didn't like the book and also thought that Harris was pressed to write another book about Hannibal Lecter by the film company(which i think is bullocks to be frank) had decided early on that the film wasn't going to be good. But i think that it was and if you say to yourself that this one is going to be totally different as a film than Jonathan Demme's Silence of the lambs then you are off to a good start. Because Scott has made a extremly stylish, goulish and almost romantic horror-thriller that is very true to the book. I thought that both Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore were very good, it can't be easy to fill the shoes of original Starling, Jodie Foster, but Moore is a better actress and tries do her version of Starling, not imitate Foster. Where Silence... was a tight, exciting detective-thriller, Hannibal is more of a opera/horror/romance thriller that sometimes slides over to macabre humour. I thought it was scary and thrilling and very intense. I've heard and read some people say, it doesn't happen anything in the movie, it's not very scary, eehh, do you have any imagination at all? It's the same thing with Blair witch project, a fantastic horror movie. But if you can't feel yourself in the situation and if your imagination doesn't start up, well then it's your loss. And if you have set your mind for a Silence 2, you're bound to be disappointed. It's not easy to follow up a movie like Silence... but i think Hannibal was a very good try. I liked it a lot!

This movie seemed rushed, and pointless. He has done enough revenge movies already! I didn't care about any of the characters. I normal like the soundtracks of Tarantino's movies, but I didn't like hearing a rap (or whatever you call it) song in a western. People complained about the number of times they said the word n*gg*r. That didn't really bother me. Its a movie about slavery. The usage did, it sounded to modern. It was funny, a whole theater full of people didn't bat an eye over a man getting beat to death. Yet they all jumped and cringed every time someone said n*gg*r. It was filled with the usual references and hommages to the genre Tarantino is ripping off. Like the cameo by "Hang'Em Highs" Bruce Dern. An like Django spelling his name to the real Django, Franco Nero. Which I liked. But it seemed forced. This movie just seemed like a good idea that was poorly executed to me.

I felt compelled to review this movie looking at the huge number of people who gave this movie a 4 or less. I rated it a seven though a 7.4 would be closer to the final mark. Technically the movie is astounding with very realistic backdrops. It seems to me that this is the way Egypt, or at least parts of it, must have looked like at the time. I have visited many of Egypt's monuments and at least these appear to be well represented. The cinematography is remarkable and the 3D works well for the first 20 minutes (the effect always wears off for me after that) The acting of the leads was very effective. Christian Bale was as intense as ever portraying Moses and his reluctance to lead as well as his inner struggle became apparent. Joel Egerton gave a very nuanced performance as Ramses. All other roles are rather small and some of the talent could be regarded as wasted but why view it like that? Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul do more than just make mere cameo appearance so things could have been far worse. This story does not allow much time for developing all the characters and in my opinion it does not need to. So the story-line is not one on one with the one in the old testament. That hardly means it is offensive and certainly not that its less history accurate.-Spoiler Alert- What is interesting is the way one of the Pharaohs consultants explains the plagues. This may not be to the liking of all Christians. Perhaps some of them would have preferred that Dinosaurs would have been included to help create the grand monuments. Talk about historically accurate ;-). This is clearly not a tale of submission to religion. It is more a tale of doubt and it may perhaps inspire people to take a fresh look at ancient writings and question the occurrences in much the same way Moses is doing in this movie. All in all the movie is entertaining. It may not be Scott's best but than again he has an awful lot to live up to.

Kar Wai Wong's "In the Mood for Love" could be seen as the Asian version of David Lean's classic "Brief Encounter", dealing with the emerging relationships of people married to others, relationships, which should never have happened. But both takes on the same theme bring their own distinctive accentuations and make the films enjoyable for very different reasons. Kar Wai Wong's movie is a period piece, set in Hong Kong in the 1960s, with a strong emphasis on style, elegance and subtlety. It bears a fascinating auratic - or let's say for the sake of word play - erotic mix of poetry, nostalgia, melancholy, framed by society conventions and daily routines in which an impossible romance against a backdrop of loneliness is quietly thriving, causing longing, desire, hardship and demanding painful decisions."In the Mood for Love" has a couple of artistic touches and cinematic patterns which add considerably to the enjoyment: Kar Wai Wong e.g. intentionally keeps the story of Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow to themselves. It's not about their spouses, and all conversations with them are handled with the married partners entirely out of frame. Camera positions, conversations, walking paths in shots are repeated again and again to intensify the every day feeling that permeates lives, only the emotional charge between the romantic protagonists increases. The music (also recurring and only varied) by Michael Galasso and Shigeru Umebayashi, especially Yumeji's Theme, make up one of the most unforgettable soundtracks you will come across - a dreamy dance of sensuality, as is this exquisitely beautiful film.

Return of the King is the best film I have ever seen. All other film classics pale into insignificance next to it.Peter Jackson manages to make a 3hr 20min film feel like 1hr long and leaves you wanting more.In fact, I'm going to see it again as soon as I find a cinema that actually has tickets available in the next week or so.

Being a big John Travolta fan i was very excited to see how he would perform in this (following his recent not-so-good movies!!), and i can safely say that i loved his performance in Swordfish (easily his best since Broken Arrow in 1996). However it's not just his performance which carries this movie; other great cast include hugh jackman, halle berry and don cheadle. There are some fantastic action sequences as well, like the opening scene or the car chase (which is fantastic, by the way, as you would expect from Dominic Sena) To sum it up, a fantastic action/techno thriller; if you liked John's other movies (like broken arrow, face off, pulp fiction) then you will probably really enjoy this. Highly recommended!!!!

The first of these movie, "Alien," is in my DVD collection but not the rest, beginning with this sequel. I'm sorry but having low-life people portrayed as astronauts is ludicrous and insulting. I put up with it in "Alien," but it's even worse in this film, beginning with Sigourney Weaver's character who is extremely profane and butch-like in her macho-feminist overdone characterization. Who cares about scary aliens when the supposed "good guys" are this sleazy? The cast fits the scummy people perfectly as these actors are known for these kind of roles. It's just another in a line of films directed by James Cameron that feature scumbags as the lead characters.Of course, the sick critics loved it. Figures.

The "complete Metropolis" isn't so complete. There's still a good five to ten minutes missing, which, sadly, may never be found. But if Metropolis is one thing, besides being a terrifically made film, it's a lesson in persevering. It seems to be the film that just won't die, no matter how hard those stupid Nazis tried to kill it. Fate seems to have intervened with this movie, saving it from a state of incompleteness through a series of very odd circumstances. And beyond all of that, it's a good film too. Fritz Lang was way ahead of his time when he made it; the special effects stand out especially, particularly the scenes of the lusting eyes and the flood. It's groundbreaking stuff.There were some cornball moments, which stemmed from the classical-style acting used in silent films, which made the film feel a bit more dated than what it probably should.But those cornball moments don't matter, it's Metropolis, it's a Fritz Lang masterpiece, and finding those missing 25 minutes was like finding the Holy Grail. By restoring this film a very important piece of Cinema was recovered; like the movie or not, it's hard not to see the magnitude of the event.I already wanna' watch it again.

I gave some claps after the movie ended, so I did think it was good. The cinematography was beautiful, the music was great, the movie did well in capturing emotions, and the acting definitely deserved the nominations.However, the love story was quite unconvincing. For some reason, Carol just sets eyes on Therese and goes after her. And for some reason Therese just gets obsessed with Carol. All of a sudden Carol's inviting Therese to everything and Therese is getting all awkward around Carol. Don't you know that in a love story you need to at least explain why they got attracted to each other? The sex scene was good, but you can't just throw that out there and claim that that's chemistry. The development was very weak. For the first half of the movie, it was pretty much just Carol seducing Therese and inviting her over. It really just seems like a lesbian hook up, but half way through the movie we're supposed to accept that they're the love of each other's lives? I've seen some complaints about this movie and I do agree on this: The romance seems so forced and rushed, are we just forgiving it because it's a gay relationship? If we take the gay context out, switch the roles of Carol and Harge, make Harge the one ending the marriage and hitting on young girls, would people still be okay with the way the story was developed?And I think the directors really need to understand that being gay doesn't justify everything. It explains why Carol didn't want to be with her husband, but it doesn't justify her abusing him and ignoring him and lying to him. It explains why Therese decided to give up everything with Richard for Carol, but both Richard and Harge were good guys, it's not okay to abuse them like that. It would be one thing if Therese told Richard "I realized I'm gay and I decided to follow this woman so let's break up", but it's another that she denied it, lied to him, and still used his feelings for her. OK I realize this is the 50's, but still, by victimizing Harge and Richard, I lost a lot of compassion for Carol and Therese when things didn't work.And Carol's character just wasn't very likable overall. If I had to pick a villain of this film, it would be Carol. Lesbian or not, she was having affairs. Her husband tried to ask her to stay, and she abused his decency. She seduced Therese, and irresponsibly brought Therese with her on her get away trip, then dumped her because she made a mistake and got caught. She seemed to love her daughter, which was probably her one redeeming quality, but then at the beginning of the film she gets her daughter a train set even though her daughter wanted a doll just because she was busy seducing the cute little salesgirl. She claims to love her daughter, but won't compromise anything to Harge even if that was the only way. She dumps Therese and gets her lawyer to make a convincing case for her to gain custody, and she screws his hard work. Yeah I know nobody's a saint, but by making Carol so unlikable, they really make this story a lot harder to sell. I was really surprised that they had a happy ending. In some ways, it didn't seem like Carol deserved it, and Therese deserved more to move on.The story was a good story. The filming was outstanding. But it's not a masterpiece.

Christian is a young poet who arrives to Paris in 1899, the summer of love to be part of the bohemian revolution that's happening. With some luck and the help from a group of bohemians that includes Toulouse-Lautrec he ends up being the main writer of the most ambitious show that's about to be presented in the Moulin Rouge (the most famous night club of its time). What he doesn't know is that he would find true love personified in Satine, the star courtesan and aspiring actress.However, things won't be easy once Christian and Satine are together: a jealous Duke who wants Satine only for him (who also happens to be the main investor in the show), Harold Zidler's refusal to the relationship (mostly because of the fear of losing the Duke's sponsorship) and a fatal disease condemn their destiny as lovers.The plot described above easily sounds taken from any conventional romance novel and could have been an average period piece. In Baz Luhrmann's particular vision it becomes a completely bizarre and indescribable experience. Why? Luhrmann takes the risk of using a forgotten movie genre: the musical and with some of the most emblematic pop songs of the 90's creates what he calls a "real artificiality" in which anything is possible. Or where else is possible to witness a very unusual rendition of Like a virgin sung by Jim Broadbent? or Ewan Mcgregor singing' Elton John's Your Song? Another risk Lhurmann takes is hiring actors that aren't exactly known for being gifted singers. Nonetheless the risk works and Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, Jim Broadbent and the rest of the cast prove to have stunning voices. In addition to that, they also deliver powerful performances that reach a very wide field of emotions, from the most absolute absurd to the most heartbreaking tragedy being completely believable.A very important element for Luhrmann's vision to be complete is the recreation of the 1899 Paris. Luhrmann and his team decide not to do a carbon copy of the Moulin Rouge and its elements and instead they create a whole new Moulin Rouge based on how new audiences would imagine it if it had been existed in this time. Also the costume design has an important role here, every gown and dress has own life and differentiates this movie from others.Also the choreography of the musical numbers are completely breathtaking and remind us every moment we're not watching a typical musical movie. And that's Luhrmann's main intention: to create a completely different movie that becomes an experience for the audiences. Many people won't agree with this point of view, but those who agree are grateful for a many-splendored thing like Moulin Rouge!

Having never been a "24" fan, but realizing it had a huge Keifer Sutherland following, I decided to give "Designated Survivor" a try (especially since Kal Penn has a supporting role). I'm loving it!The premise of POTUS succession has intrigued many of us since high school civics class and this show delivers a fast-paced insight to the possible inner workings of US government. All the current elements are there: terrorism, conspiracy theory, partisan politics, AND an unexpected President with no political experience.Episode 12 (of 22) on March 15, "The End of the Beginning", had so much plot development on at least 3 different fronts that it could have been a mid or season finale. Key characters may have been eliminated...or have they? Where will this season's final 10 episodes go? I can't wait to find out.

I saw the original numerous times and enjoyed that but the poor CGI always ruined it for me. I had some trepidation about going to see this but an Amazon Prime early screening ticket made me watch it.I don't regret it, as it was enjoyable fun, made me laugh a few times and had decent CGI which did not take me out of the movie. The leads had great comedic talent and I liked the way that they made me feel like they actually were in other people's bodies. It was a bonus to see one of my favorite actors appear mid movie. The only quibble I have is that the bad guy was a let down. I kept waiting for him to show his powers and be a great threat and expecting a big "boss" fight but sadly it did not happen. Also the Transport Hanger was built up as hard level to beat and it was not. They easily outnumbered the guards who were defeated by a single character. I'm glad they decided at the end that this would not have a sequel. When you see the scene you will know what I mean. All in all, a great piece of entertainment with great action, adventure and comedy.

'THE BIG LEBOWSKI' was directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, and stars Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Julian Moore. When 'The Dude'(Jeff Bridges) is mistaken for Jeffrey Lebowski(David Huddleston), his life becomes a lot more complicated than before. Word of Advice: watch this movie while intoxicated. I watched it while sober and still enjoyed it immensely but I guarantee that watching this movie while off your head will improve it. That said, this is a very enjoyable comedy. Jeff Bridges shines bright as 'The Dude' with an excellent cast, including John Goodman and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, also providing great performances and being the potatoes to this meat and potato pie. The comedy is pretty good and I'll definitely say that more jokes hit than they do fail. That said, I won't say that many jokes in this movie are hysterically funny; I chuckled a lot but I only full on laughed out loud maybe 2 or 3 times. That isn't a massive gripe but it's something I though I should mention.My main gripe with this movie is that being intoxicated is probably the best way to see it, and that is not a major gripe at all. The story is pretty basic but works well for what it is attempting to do. Despite this, they set up a lot of character and story arcs that go NOWHERE which was really annoying. That is my second major flaw with this movie. It sets up interesting characters like Jesus and even Donnie but then ignores them or even completely forgets them for the majority of the plot. I would rather the characters not be in the movie, than have them in it for only a minuscule amount of time. The ending(which I love by the way) is very open and allows a lot more possibilities for sequels where they could have explored these characters more and gave them more depth instead of cramming them all into this one movie.Even with these flaws, the movie is very damn enjoyable. Its incredible, colourful, imaginative characters really drive the movie and they are what makes this movie shine. That is why I wanted more time going to some of the supporting roles. A lot of effort was clearly put into these characters and I wish they got more screen time to bloom.It's a very technically proficient movie; the cinematography is pretty good. The set and costume design is great. I have no real flaws with this movie as far as sets and camera-work goes. Maybe a few changes to character and set design but I can't say it was anything that really hindered my enjoyment.All in all, this movie is very enjoyable sober(and I imagine even more so while on something) therefor I do recommend this movie to anyone, so long as you're prepared to possibly have a breakdown during a few sequences of this movie. It's a very enjoyable movie, and I'll rate it 8 rugs out of 10.

If you watch this movie, and just happen to pay attention, you'll be very confused by the end. Warning: major spoiler ahead.There's a scene where Arnie is getting his vacation chip installed in his brain, and just before he gets it, a technician is looking at the chip. The guy mentions something like 'oh look, here's a new one, blue sky on Mars!'. They proceed to embed the chip and away we go.At the end, after Arnie activates the Alien atmospheric converter/creator, a s***load of oxygen is released and creates an atmosphere, complete with lightning and thunder. Eventually a blue sky forms. This is where the confusion comes in. The whole movie revolves around the audience wondering if Arnie is really a secret agent whose past memories have been triggered, or if he's just experiencing his vacation chip. Philip K. Dick originally wrote the story to keep you guessing, even after you read the last page, and the movie successfully carries this off. However, most people I've talked to never noticed the technician talking about the blue sky on Mars chip, and hence don't get the full effect of the built-in confusion. I think if you watch this movie again and really pay attention (maybe even turn on the subtitles), you'll enjoy it much more. Realize the paradox: blue sky on Mars chip, blue sky on Mars at the end of the movie. Overall, a great action film with one of the best action film guys ever. Special effects are pretty damn special, or at least were in their time. The plot kinda sucks, and the dialogue is predictably bad, but who goes to see Predator or a film like this expecting a really interesting plot and some great lines other than 'I'll be back' or 'stick around'? One good quotable is 'open your mind, Quaid'. I forgot if Arnie gets any catchy lines or not. A good way to waste 120 minutes of your life.

I was a huge fan of the first and went in with high hopes for the second. I was not disappointed. As a fan I might add. The big sets are still here, the frenetic chases through the streets, Holmes trade mark pre-fight slow mo sequences and a forest chase that is sure to delight the action hungry audiences.Personally, I absolutely love the new take on Sherlock, dismissing the more traditional Sherlock was for some, a huge disappointment. In fact, I'm more than well aware of the more die hard Sherlock fans who were not happy to see a masculine Holmes barreling his way through dozens of thugs, swinging his fists and kicking his way through doors.Some may also be disappointed by the fact the "mystery" didn't really tickle the intellect. I would agree as well. That I do think the detective side of Sherlock didn't really shine. Sure, Sherlocks brilliance was shown every so often, but not in the novel way we would like to see in a brilliant detective. The mental battle between Moriarty and Holmes was great, but could've been better. Maybe given some space to breath in between all the machine guns and explosions.The same cast is there, and the witty banter between Holmes and Watson will often bring a laugh or two. The dialogue still as entertaining as the first. The female plays a more slightly up front role in the film, but it is still a film for the fellas. Needless to say though, Noomi Rapace's role does not disappoint but nor is it stellar. Moriarty is played by Jared Harris who died a fine job in depicting a timeless villain.Really, all you really want to know if it's worth seeing right? Yes. Yes it is. It's an action film. A fun film. Don't go in for paradigm shifts or mind boggling puzzles, but enjoy the visual roller coaster Guy Ritchie has created for us. There are some wonderful camera shots and angles he employs that are sure to delight. Some of the older or more "stiff upper lipped" movie goers may be a little disorientated by them however. The phantom shots are great, Guy has a bit of a love for these sequences and they are shot well, giving a wonderful new pace to the action.What you get one you shell out the money for your ticket is a wild romp in the park with Sherlock. Brilliant action sequences and well played characters. Sherlocks brilliance is somewhat overshadowed by the action, but the film still stands as a fun, fast paced movie which should delight many viewers at almost any age.

I never was one of those people asking for a Blade Runner sequel. Now that Blade Runner 2049 is out, my position still stands. This film is simply a massive letdown and nothing more.The year is 2049 and the world has grown in technology, but not humanity. Ryan Gosling plays K, a Blade Runner (a futuristic cop) tasked with tracking down the last of the Replicants-androids that look like humans. Knowing that he himself is a replicant, he goes on a journey of his own when he finds a box containing the bones of a Replicant who gave birth to a child and is tasked with finding the child. Little does he know that the new head of the Tyrell Corporation that makes the Replicants, Mr. Wallace (Jared Leto), plans to use the missing child for his own purposes and kill K if he has to.My main problem with the film is that it was unforgivably boring. The film is two hours and forty-five minutes long, which is already enough to test one's patience (and bladder), but it feels so deliberately paced; the characters almost always move so slow, that it feels like the filmmakers thought that it was the best way to pad out the running time, despite having not enough material to justify it.The performances range from great to laughable. Harrison Ford is hardly in the movie, and his inclusion is clearly a marketing ploy, but he gives the best performance in his brief running time and he feels like a continuation of his character from the original, Deckard, in a world where things have just gotten worse. Gosling isn't bad as K, and his stone-face actually is pretty effective in a couple of scenes, but Rutger Hauer in the original gave his Replicant character more of a personality. Leto is trying and failing to bring a degree of menace as the villain, and his female Replicant sidekick competes with him in the field of phoning it in.What else shocked me was how unsubtle the film was. The original was not only a futuristic crime noir that had Harrison Ford's Deckard chasing down androids, but also a personal journey involving himself and Rutger Hauer as the villain that involved trying to find a degree of humanity in such a futuristic world, and that maybe, Deckard is a replicant himself. Here, the story is mainly of Gosling trying to come to terms with the fact that he is a Replicant and what it means in terms of his humanity. Whereas in the original, there were subtle signs, images, and bits of dialogue that hinted at Deckard's purpose in the original, everything is spelled out for the audience to the point that old bits of dialogue are repeated thrice at important moments. It doesn't respect the audience's intelligence at all. The first and final thirds of the film are mainly filled with dialogue that is basically speeches that preach ideas about conflict and the ethics of machines, but hardly any of it is explored in an interesting fashion. What's worse, the film feels so empty and devoid that for a time, I forgot what K's objective was.What I will say is that the cinematography is beautiful. There are a lot of colorful images with ancient ruins and futuristic tech in the background and foreground that could easily pass as being part of an art gallery. The only downside is that there is too much gray in some shots and it feels too clean compared to the original.Why Warner Brothers and Sony wasted their time making this film, I have no clue. Maybe it was Ridley Scott's fault. After being unimpressed with his Alien: Covenant earlier this year (and was also quite the snooze-fest), watching this only proved to me further that Scott just doesn't care about good filmmaking anymore. Denis Villeneuve is clearly an ambitious director, but his style didn't feel completely right for this film. Clearly, in a film that tries so desperately to say much more humanity than its predecessor, it comes out feeling empty and feels less human than the original did.P.S. A lot of people have accused me of being too shallow and wanting this film to be more action packed. I do not have that mindset. I enjoy films that take their time as much as the next film enthusiast, but this one just didn't do enough to justify what it was aiming for. I'm not ashamed in expressing my opinion. Just let me be clear on something: going at a slow, deliberate pace and speaking lines of preachy dialogue does not, I repeat, does not equal intelligence. The positive reviews baffle me, especially on Rotten Tomatoes. Sony owns the company, which leads me to think that maybe it bribed more than a few critics in the hopes that more people would see it. Clearly, that is backfiring and I'm happy that people are rejecting it.

The themes that Martin Scorsese addresses in this film—the thin line between self-recrimination and nostalgia, the effects of advancing technology on thriving art forms, and the lasting effects of a father's love—would seem misguided in a typical children's film. "Hugo," however, a children's film directed by Scorsese—one of the greatest American film directors of all time ("Taxi Driver," "Goodfellas," "The Aviator," "Raging Bull," "The Departed")—is no typical children's film. Scorsese has made a children's film for adults who still experience the joys, wonders, mysteries, and painful epiphanies of childhood.First of all, the "exotic" setting of a 1930s Parisian train station establishes the wistful tone. The film is beautiful to behold—the colors, the cinematography, the set design, and the art direction are all stunningly beautiful. The plot itself focuses on the titular hero, a young boy who lives in the rafters and bowels of the station and spends his time adjusting the station's numerous clocks, evading the menacing pursuit of the Station Inspector (played by an appropriately surly Sacha Baron Cohen), and searching for parts that animate the automaton left to him by his dead father (played by Jude Law in an unfortunately brief appearance). Through the course of his quest, Hugo encounters an elderly shopkeeper (Ben Kingsley in another masterful performance), the shopkeeper's god-daughter, and a film historian. Through these connections, Hugo begins to piece together not only the mystery of the automaton but also the impact of the beginnings of cinema as an art form.The film is sumptuous, the plot is charming, the actors are magnificent—yet somehow the film amounts to far less than the sum of its parts. I found myself bored at many points during the film—the story seems to linger a bit too much, allowing the viewer to appreciate (almost excessively so) the aesthetic and nostalgic beauty of the film. Overall, I'm glad I've seen it, but "Hugo" is not a film that I plan on ever watching again.

This is probably the comedy that I enjoyed most.. It has so many classic moments (the bridge of death, the knights of ni, the killer rabbit are my favourites)... and the sketch of the historian is great! It has some blood,(like the part of the 2 knights fight wich is briliant) but that doesn't ruin the film at all!! Monty Python rules!!

One of my all-time favorites. A brilliantly conceived mystery, well-adapted from the unfilmable source material and condensed to manageable proportions. Executed better than I could have possibly imagined it, this movie is not only well-done but entertaining to watch. The three leading men at the top of their form give trial Oscar-worthy performances as very different police officers who become entangled in an unsolved mass murder. Definitely better than the "Best Picture" of '97.

lets see...all three icons of horror but in todays 'vision' they are one in the same. just because it was dirty, greasy, and filthy in Texas Chainsaw Massacre doesn't mean it can work for the other franchises. this movie was as great as Rob Zombies take on Halloween. TERRIBLE. you could swap the killers and you wouldn't know the difference. i didn't need Jason to have an underground dwelling. he doesn't look into mirrors to see if hes terrifying. and he certainly doesn't take hostages. i don't need a humanized back story for Michael Myers to make me understand why he does what he does. these guys are monsters just like Godzilla and Dracula. they are evil incarnate...revenge personified. guys like Zombie have stripped all that was terrifying and mysterious and built them up to be more human and painted them to look more like Leatherface. water the classics down for todays audience. apparently we have all become psycho-analysts and we need to understand why these monsters are brutal killers, to know how they live. that and why their masks are so dirty they look more and more like skin stitched together...ill take the originals any time, thx.

I thought this movie was disappointing. I was expecting Marley, the dog, to be the star, but the film was really more about John, played by Owen Wilson. Owen wasn't a good pick in my opinion. I have a hard time believing him to be a family man. Also Jennifer Aniston isn't who you think of as a mom of 3 kids. I think she was miscast also.The movie shows the two getting married and moving to Florida where they buy Marley. Marley tears up the house, chews on things, and is sort of like their baby. Eventually, they start having kids and this is when Marley gets shoved to the background. The rest of the film is just them having marital fights, making up, raising kids, and moving north. The movie ends with Marley's death, and the family reflects on the good times. It seemed to me that was stuck in there to try to convince people this movie was better than it was. Dogs should never die in movies, people don't want to see that.FINAL VERDICT: Not that good. I don't recommend it.

This movie has three elements that are important for an animated Disney movie: Great songs, a good villain and a great sidekick.The songs and music in general are just great and very memorable. Jafar is a great villain mainly because he is voiced by Jonathan Freeman who has got a good and scary voice. But what is maybe the best element of the movie is Robin Williams as the blue genie. The blue genie is like a jokemachine that once it is started can't stop again and keeps you laughing.The story is good and the pace is high. "Aladdin" is not too short and it's not too long, it's not too immature and it's not too mature, it's a perfect movie for the entire family with a wonderful love story (even though it's no "Beauty and the Beast") and good animations with some good looking early computer effects.9/10

So is this just another Michael Bay movie with hilarious non-stop-action but a non-abundant plot? Yes and No. During its first half the movie tries to be a more or less serious science-fiction movie. The story is definitely not spectacular but at least there is some science in the story as compared to most other big budget science-fiction movies of the last years like Matrix where the science aspect was abused to justify original action sequences.As the story unfolds more and more during the first hour one is actually tempted to think that this is not a Michael Bay movie if you don't consider the annoying soundtrack and the stylish look of the movie. But after about half of the movie the Michael Bay we use to know takes over. Maybe this guy suffered from a schizophrenia attack while shooting the film or he had another director direct the first hour, I don't know. All of a sudden any logic and plot development is dropped and replaced by a mindless chase and demolition scenario. The remaining storyline could have been told in 15 minutes. I don't think that there should have been no action in this movie but such an uneven distribution between plot and action just divides this movie into two smaller ones that have a total lack of reference between each other.In Summary if you want to watch a decent science-fiction movie you should stop watching after half of it. If you want to watch a typical Michael Bay movie you should start watching after half of it is over. This leaves you with two incomplete movies, a circumstance that I don't find very satisfying.

Being a tremendous fan of Danny Boyle, I was almost certain that I would fall in love with "Sunshine", his take on a common Science-Fiction story.The film was superbly cast, featuring a strong combination of international talents including Hiroyuki Sanada, Michelle Yeoh, Cliff Curtis, Chris Evans, Rose Byrne and Cillian Murphy. For the most part it was beautifully shot, written, and directed, featuring many positively stunning moments.But where the film struggled was in the final act, when it seemed as though the movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a character study masquerading as science-fiction, or the next Alien/Predator analog.All in all it was a solid film, and one I would recommend for anyone's film library. I just wish that Alex Garland could have found a stronger way to bring it all to climax.

Excuse me for the bad English. I want to start by saying this, WHAT A GREAT MOVIE. Since the first second of the movie I was mesmerized by how amazing this movie is, I mean how often do you see a movie that has it all, it's not based on a true story but it contains history elements, like the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal etc. It's also not biographical but you can see John Lennon& JFK, it's also a romance and a comedy at the same time and of course DRAMA. It's brilliant to be in a movie that was a huge success both commercially with more than 600M$(second most in 1994 behind only THE LION KING)and critically with six Oscars (including Best Picture). Tom Hanks(Oscar winning role)excelled in this movie, and he made the whole world cry with him in the scene when Jenny dies, he did the same thing six years later in Cast Away when he made the whole world cry over a volleyball !!! . "My momma always said: "Life is like a box of chocolates, you'll never know what you're gonna get"", what a quote

On a scale of 1 to 10, "Evil Dead" would be ranked somewhere in the middle. It wasn't good, but it wasn't horrendous either. It was a mediocre film when considering the standards for its genre. Unfortunately, Fede Alvarez's "Evil Dead" didn't really have enough depth to make us properly feel anything for its characters. The attempt at a slightly emotional and connected character story is to be applauded; however, it still seemed to fall flat in many areas.The beginning starts off with a recount of what happened earlier (perhaps a few years, but it's not clear) and a foreshadowing of what's to come. After, we cut to a cabin in the middle of the woods (because that's usually how the monsters, demons, and ghosts keep you away from civilization). Mia (Jane Levy) is trying to detox after a long battle with drug abuse with the help of her brother David and friends Eric, Olivia, and Natalie (Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, and Elizabeth Blackmore).The friends find an evil book in a basement filled with dead cats. Curiosity getting the better of him, Eric reads an incantation from the book. Of course, once this happens, the rest of the film becomes a tiring wait to see who dies first. A demon is summoned and possesses Mia and then systematically begins trying to possess and kill everyone else. It isn't really scary as much as it is extremely disgusting. There is plenty of gore, cutoff extremities, and creepy sounds that are pretty on par with several other horror movies. Unfortunately, "Evil Dead" doesn't harbor any story surprises and becomes really tedious as the same thing happens to each character and you're left wondering if the movie is over yet. Elizabeth Blackmore's character is only there to serve as one of the souls that the demon must feast upon in order to rise. She has a few speaking lines and her best performance comes from the scene where she shoots her friends with a nail gun. All the character decisions at some point leave you shaking your head at their illogical actions and occasionally even the dialogue is lackluster."Evil Dead" only really makes sense in regards to why the demon chooses to possess Mia and not anyone else. Besides the obvious case of being the nearest one, Mia has the weakest will of all her friends and the demon catches her at a particularly vulnerable moment. On the other hand, the reason for the demon's existence or why it needs to possess a certain number of people is never explained nor is the reason why they decided to remake Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead" in the first place. All in all, if you enjoy horror movies, a lot of blood and some creepy scenes, then "Evil Dead" is for you. Just remember not to expect too much out of it. Grade: 2 out 5 Starswww.themovieexaminer.com

What can you say about Ghostbusters 2016 that hasn't already been said? A unique portrait of four original funny characters, taking comedy to a whole new, undiscovered, level. The great director Paul Feig shows no lack in directing skills with this masterful palme d'or deserving motion picture. Ghostbusters 2016 gives you an original insight into a world of fantasy and adventure, few films have done before. A comedy that puts Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks to shame. The fresh new take on the old forgotten original is not only unique in its style and humor, but also the way it gives every single character time to develop a persona. The chemistry between the leading characters is something to admire, a study in creative screen writing. Feig shows once and for all how raw talent and original ideas are essential in the making of a masterpiece. Roger Ebert's thumbs are no longer six feet under.

It started with potential, batman was batman, wonder women was wonder woman, but aqua man, flash, and cyborg were all different characters from the TV series, and Superman looked like the last superman but.... Not to take away from the actors in the movie, but disappointing. Then they hinted about the Dark Side, which was the greatest villain in DC comics, but did not bring in the Forever People. Lastly the big villain of this story was easily defeated with 6 punches and then carried off by his own minions. As for the portrayal of the characters-Wonder Woman seem to be the only one serious about fighting for what she believed in, everyone else was in joke mode-by the way, not funny! Overall, the visuals were great, and we got to witness how the Justice League was started. However, in my opinion the script sucked.

There are few films out there even today that can match Amadeus' incomparable genius. For starters, the two leading actors played by Oscar and Golden Globe Winner F. Murray Abraham and Oscar Nominee Tom Hulce play Antonio Salieri and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, two rival composers. When Abraham speaks, you can't take your eyes off him whether he is elderly or young and promising and gifted as well. He saves his envy for the spoiled musical prodigy Mozart who is also goofy and childish as well. It's Salieri who begins to despise his rival without telling him the truth of how much he resented Mozart's musical genius and that God chose Mozart over Salieri. Anyway, the backdrop which includes the lavish costumes and art direction are unforgettable. The movie takes you to another place and time where the same occurrences of rivalries, jealousies, and envy can be a powerful weapon of hatred. Mozart naively believes in Salieri's friendship and support. I don't care for the casting of American actors like Jeffrey Jones playing the Austrian emperor. Cynthia Nixon playing the maid hired by Salieri to spy on the Mozart family. I thought Elizabeth Berridge was adequate as well as Christine Ebersole. British actors like Roy Dotrice (when will be honored) and Simon Callow CBE are equally the same. It really is Salieri's film overall told from his point of view. You can't forget Mozart's unique laugh and his desire for his father's love who wants him back in Salzburg than in Vienna. Salieri's father died while he was young. We don't see much of the women in the film but that is expected since you expect that women were still second class citizens. Salieri envied Mozart's genius as well as zest for life outside music. He loved parties and people while Salieri preferred music. Oh what a film for the ages!

OK, that's what happens if you let a soulless illiterate with no knowledge nor respect like Peter Jackson direct a Nobel worth book into a movie.He is barely knowledgeable to direct a popcorn flick. What do you expect? A miracle? It simply didn't happen, this movie sucks from beginning to end and all it achieved, while making tons of money, is to irritate Tolkien's books lovers and connoisseurs (and there are many of us out there).I doubt Peter Jackson even ever read Tolkien's books, because if he did, THAT would really give his doctors some good reasons to rethink his medication administration.Peter, life ain't 50% MTV and the rest video-games. There is literature as well. We appreciate you aren't interested, so leave it alone.2 more partners (one literally so) in crime:1) Fran Walsh (Peter's untalented wife Jesus, he hired his wife... She's pretty, I will give you that... BUT: former member of a lousy punk rock band and author of a few embarrassingly awful B-movie scripts, all of them for Peter. WOW what an impressive CV, let's hire HER as screen writer for one of the most known and loved masterpieces in the history of mankind. The Lord Of The Rings. He his overweight and unattractive, she looks gorgeous, we all know how it works, you want to make her happy (or have to?). Why don't you produce her punk rock album? Buy her an Aston Martin. Must an all time literature wizard be involved at all cost? God help us, could Jackson not hire his children as hobbits, his dog as Gollum and his grandpa as Gandalf and make it a silly TV comedy-reality show with laugh track? It looks like he just doesn't give a damn);2) Philippa Boyens (the "writer" responsible of most of the dumb-ideas-inspired-destruction in The Lord Of The Rings script. After misunderstanding completely the original story of a masterpiece worth a Nobel, she had the nerve to say she knew better than Tolkien himself how to keep high the tension of the story. She actually said that in an interview, I promise. Probably a pronoid (person convinced, despite any visible evidence, to be considered a genius by everybody). Problem is she isn't close to be as talented as arrogant. Her scripts are awful. Something a bored hair dresser would have better written during the manicure pause while watching Desperate Housewives on TV). Wasn't there a REAL writer available? As the things she says truly are incredible, I will quote a part of her interview, about the reasons why she turned Faramir, one of the most subtle characters in the story, into a brainless idiot.""If you're trying to up the tension, you don't have your main characters captured by someone who sort of interrogates them, but, not really, who then offers them a cup of tea and says, 'I'll do anything I can to help you.' It's death on film. And it's not just the effect that the character out of the book has on Frodo and Sam's journey, it's the effect that character has on the Ring. You've just been desperately trying to establish that this is the most evil thing ever created, it's tearing apart the mind of your main character, it's reduced this other character to this miserable creature Gollum, and now you come along someone who says, 'I would not touch this thing if it lay on the highway.' You've just stripped the Ring of all its power.""Is this amateur really saying that LOTR needs her support to up the tension? Editing the story because it's not effective? Was Tolkien wrong in the description of HIS OWN characters? "You've just stripped the Ring of all its power"... well, pity J.R.R.Tolkien is no longer with us, it took him over 40 years to write The lord Of The Rings. He would have loved your corrections on his work, Mrs grammar school. Was there really need of such brains, Peter? 99.99999% of this world loves and knows Tolkien and his work, and you hire the only person who doesn't to write a script? The only turd who thinks she knows better than he did? Good choice...The 2 "writers" who had the nerve of destroying the work of a genius flattening a deep, multi-layered masterpiece into a collage of daft garden variety and redundant CGI manure (remember Donkey-Kong-Faramir? Remember Super-Legolas using a shield as a skateboard or Hyper-free-climbing on the back of an oliphant crossbred with a skyscraper? All in all worth Gremlins without Gremlins fun to it. Remember Tom Bombadil? No? Totally wiped out from the story... Why? No reason), probably thinking that quantity can make up for quality. No, it doesn't work that way.Read the books. LOVE the books. UNDERSTAND the damn books. THEN make movies out of them.Or at least respect books, specially the ones you didn't understand.Tolkien had far better writing skills than you untalented bunch of amateurs of labelling the only book present in your bookcase: "History of Film-Making through popcorn flavours". Stop abusing his wonderful work.Stop appointing untalented kindergarten teachers to jobs they aren't capable of. Write your own silly B-movie "Dwarves vs Rock Giants", but Mr. Jackson, you have no right nor title to pee and poo at will over the milestones of literature.

Of course now it's not really a trilogy anymore is it? But the title refers to episodes 4-6. Now on to the review: Star Wars is hands down the best clash of good and evil any person can find in movies ever. For those who haven't seen it, and shame if you haven't, this one kicks off in the middle of a war in space between the Emperor and the Rebels. Luke lives on a desert planet and longs to join the rebellion, but can't because his Uncle Ben doesn't want him to. Shortly into the movie the family purchases some droids and Luke soon finds a message hidden in R2D2's data for an Obi Wan Kenobi. Things kick into gear once Luke follows the droid to Kenobi's house and thus begins the adventure. Obi Wan believes that Luke can turn out to be a Jedi just like his father was and takes him under his wing teaching him the way of the Force once they get off Tattooin. During the movie you'll run into the memorable characters like the evil Darth Vader, the cocky Han Solo, Chewy the Wookie, and Princess Leia. Hands down episodes 4-6 are the best trilogy ever created. See it now if you haven't already.

When you go to a movie whose book you have read several times, You expect it to compromise the story a little. But I did not expect it to fail so spectacularly on every level.No character development. You get no sense of who any of the characters are. bean has no special part what so ever! like Ender's Shadow didn't happen!!! no one explains how ender got so much friends or all he had to go thru with Bernard (who's not even close to been a friend).The battle game is barely in the movie. Ender gets Dragon army, He says "training begins now" and then it just cuts to an image of Dragon moving up the leader board. They show none of the difficulty of a battle a day, how they're putting the odds against ender...the way he's giving up at the last game....really...At no point do they attempt to explain why Ender is chosen to be the commander of the entire Earth fleet. or how he develops his commander skills. They show none of his innovations, leadership ability, and he is downright unlikable at times. Everyone moves to his lunch table because he insults Bernard in class? What? That's why people will follow him to their death? Snark? Petra plays with dragon army? I've known for two years that they cast an Ender that's too old but I didn't expect him to be a FOOT TALLER than Bonzo Madrid. Ender kills Bonzo by a kick and at no time do he refuse to leave earth for him. They call Ender a Third several times but don't bother to explain what that means. Ender didn't have any communication with Valentine at all except for a letter and the meting on earth.The acting is awful (especially Ender, WE DID IT!!), the dialogue is pathetic. The special effects are nothing groundbreaking. The simulator scenes are pointless as you can't follow what's going on. Command School is "near the bugger home world". WHAT? How did they get there in time?? The fleet left right after the buggers did! And it's Molecular Disruption Device, not a Scorch the Surface of the Planet device. It was so bad the effect was to leave only dust!A bugger queen is alive?! really??? that's what happens when you don't let the author write the script and let someone who obviously didn't read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow even once!severely disappointed! can't even begin to describe it i had to go and read both books again after the movie to feel better...

Where do I begin? This movie could not have been better (maybe longer?) It was perfect in every way (except for Maggie Gyllnhall). From the opening scene you sit enthralled and literally stuck to your seat. If you try to move, something on screen will surely knock you back onto your ass. I have read Batman comics for many years and I know that the Joker is a vicious and scary guy, all of the other incarnations have never really done him justice Until Now!! Heath Ledger (God rest him) was absolutely brilliant (I wish I had a thesaurus to get more words for his performance). He was absolutely terrifying as the joker and his performance only served to make everyone else take theirs to a higher level. Christian Bale was fine (and I do mean fine) as Batman; Gary Oldman (who I usually think is a big ham) was quietly understated and strong as Leiutenant Gordan and the man who played Two Face (forgot his name) was very good looking and a superb addition to this masterpiece of destruction (even Scarecrow made a visit). There are not enough words in our language to describe the magnitude of greatness that this movie reaches. It will definitely make all superhero movies to follow have to come up to an entirely new level. Heath Ledger should be dug up, bowed before and given an posthumous Oscar for his performance. He was so scary that a couple of times, I had to actually cover my eyes for fear of what horrors he would perform next. In every aspect this movie it probably The Best Superhero Movie Ever Made!!!! Ironman and the Hulk better step up the game for their next outings. Is there any way I can give it 20 stars???

"Cidade de Deus" is a Brazilian movie that is set in the slums of the same country. We follow two brothers over the years and their lives develop completely differently. It is a world of crime, drugs, desperation, but also a world of hope for a better future. We find out about their involvement with gangs, with girls and also about their hobbies in general. One big hobby of one of them is photography and it may shape the path to the better future I just mentioned. The film runs for over 2 hours and was directed by Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund. Bráulio Mantovani adapted Paulo Lins' novel and the result may be Brazil's most famous film of all time.This one scored 4 Academy Award nominations and won a BAFTA for its editing back over 10 years ago. I personally felt it was a pretty decent watch. I cannot see the real greatness that catapulted this movie into the top25-highest rated movies of all time on IMDb, but it's not a bad film either. There are 2 or 3 moments of greatness, but the rest is merely good. Sometimes, it even drags a bit, which is why I believe this film could have been kept down to 100 minutes without losing anything truly significant that would have hurt the overall movie. My favorite scene was probably the one in the club with all the hectic lights and actions and one guy taking out his gun which results pretty much in a catastrophe. Very intense moments in here. I wish there could have been more moments like these. Still, as a whole, I recommend the watch. Pretty good movie for the most part.

Bob Hoskins without a London accent? Has he got away from the stereotyping at last? I hope so because he's a fine actor. Judi Dench, looking more like the late Queen Mother (and that's not necessarily a good thing) than ever, sparkles as the unconventional Mrs Henderson.One glitch no one seems to have picked up on. Mrs Henderson is arguing with Van Damm and says, 'There's no excuse for bad grammar' but then later on says, 'They are as normal as you and I.' Which of course a stickler for English grammar would never had said, it being 'you and me' in this case.Documentary shots of the war fit nicely in with movie fiction and the costumes (not just on stage, Mrs H wears an embroidered black satin coat I craved) were sensational.Most of all you got the authentic feel of back stage, you could almost smell the greasepaint. The nervousness of the players, the cramped quarters and dark corridors, much more interesting to see everything from this side of the tabs.My favourite scene was when Mrs H walked into the theatre to find everyone: Van Damm, stage hands and cast entirely naked. Her eyebrows only slightly raised in surprise she looks at the entrepreneur: 'Ah, Mr Van Damm, so you *are* Jewish.' Priceless.A small private amusement was provided for me having just reviewed the book 'Darling Judi' a 70th birthday tribute to the Dame. In that, Billy Connolly tells the story that when a director was to interview Judi for the role of Queen Victoria, he put him up to a practical joke. 'Tell Judi she was the 2nd one to be considered for the role,' Billy advised, 'and when she asks who was your first choice, say "Bob Hoskin".' The director did this with predictably hilarious results.A short history of the Windmill and Mrs Henderson's role in it can be found here: http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/Feb2003/Page2.htm

In 1976, eight-year-old Mary Daisy Dinkle (Bethany Whitmore) lives a lonely life in Mount Waverley, Australia. At school, she is teased by her classmates because of an unfortunate birthmark on her forehead; while at home, her distant father, Noel, and alcoholic, kleptomaniac mother, Vera, provide little support. Her only comforts are her pet rooster, Ethel; her favourite food, sweetened condensed milk; and a Smurfs-like cartoon show called The Noblets. One day, while at the post office with her mother, Mary spots a New York City telephone book and, becoming curious about Americans, decides to write to one. She randomly chooses Max Jerry Horowitz's name from the phone book and writes him a letter telling him about herself, sending it off in the hope that he will become her pen friend.

I have read comments on this film and heard from others that this film is a major flop. I disagree. Generally I am not really a Will Smith fan (acting OR singing) but he seemed to do the trick with the strangely catchy song "Wild Wild West". I agree that some of the actors could have been better cast (Will Smith included), but I have to admit that I enjoyed this film. It's simply not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I would definately watch it again. Maybe everyone out there should see the original 60's series "The Wild Wild West" with Rob Conrad and Ross Martin to fully appreciate the story. This was actually a film worth watching.

This is beautifully cast, wonderfully made, a delight to watch. I felt that all the participants enjoyed themselves as much as I did as a viewer, from villains to heroes to comic cameos. I had heard mixed reviews, but was ready to suspend belief.I had not realised how well the humour would be crafted. Some of the characters were predictable while others stood out as a remarkable surprise. In particular I enjoyed Robert de Nero; far more of a surprise than I had anticipated. I think I will enjoy watching this again, a comment I can rarely make with certainty.I should have guessed that Neil Gaiman would have created such a wonderful world.

Matthew Vaughn, who you might know as the director of "Kick-Ass", has done a wonderful job rebooting the X-Men franchise. I was incredibly captivated by the characters and the plot, and I found it perfect that it was about the Cold War. Sometimes it's hard to make a prequel because you might inadvertently create continuity errors, but with this movie, they mostly ignore the previous movies and instead focus on telling a new tale. And it works out great.I felt this was decently cast. James McAvoy was a good Charles Xavier, but having his 'sister' be Jennifer Lawrence was a bit strange to me. (She's all sorts of perfect by the way.) Kevin Bacon was... interesting to say the least. I read that Bryan Cranston was the alternative, and now I kinda wish Cranston had been chosen. The many other mutants were fine, with Darwin being my favorite. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

I wont bore you with the story, as you can read that in the description above, so I will make this review short and sweet. If you are interested in watching this movie, then please watch the original instead. John Wayne brings far more character to the role of Reuben (Rooster) Cogburn than the mumbling grumbling incomprehensible version that the otherwise wonderful Jeff bridges brings to the role. For some unknown reason they decided to make Bridges dialogue almost impossible to understand without subtitles, it's as if he had a mouthful of chewing tobacco the whole way through the film. However, there is one shining star of this movie, and that is Hailee Steinfeld.

Well I have to say I was hoping for something a little better. I had heard about the snappy, fun and well-written dialogue and was hoping to get some. What I got were mixed feelings about the film.In 2005, it's difficult to bring about a mix of comedy and action/film-noir, with plots that twist and turn to make your spin and keep it original, what with the high quality of films such as Snatch or Pulp Fiction. Here, the scriptwriters have thought of transposing all the clichés of the film-noir genre (bodies, twisted stories, mean gunmen) to an actual Hollywood setting and poking fun at them all the way.Robert Downey Jr. plays Harry Lockhart, a nice guy who made the wrong decisions, fell in love with the wrong girl, and suddenly got the wrong job. He is our narrator, and the director seams to have had fun playing around with that idea. A couple of times the film stops because the narrator forgot to tell us something or needs to change the decor a bit (I liked the part where he moves those two blokes out of the way). This sort of works, but there again the problem is we've already had our share of mythical film narrators (Alex de Large and Fight Club's "The Narrator" spring to mind) and here there seems to be a bit too much importance given to the "cool" narrative ideas which punctuate the movie, giving it a sort of cocky feel. A film that thinks it's better and more original than it actually is. Also, Downey's acting got sort of annoying sometimes, with his unsteady, jerky way of talking which felt a little overdone. The acting in general looks as if the actors themselves were having a good time, but were they thinking a lot about their audience? At some points, it looked as if the film was taking itself a little too seriously. I know this is a spoof and it's not meant to be, but still it's the impression I got.All in all Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a film which has its good moments, but isn't very satisfying when you're looking for something a bit more original, better written, and less cocky and self-assured. Persoally I would watch Lock Stock anytime again than watching this one again.

This evening I went along with my girlfriend to watch New Moon without reading any comments on IMDb or anywhere else. I've seen the first movie, haven't read any of the books, but obviously my girlfriend has. She ensured me that it would be good, as some of her friends have seen it and were delighted with how good it was.They either watched a different movie for two hours or have some insane blind loyalty towards the books and films.The acting was non existent and awful, there were about six expressions shared amongst everyone on screen. The story was full of holes, also extremely slow in places and in other places felt extremely rushed, as though the people making the movie couldn't be bothered. Very disappointed.I wish I could get back the two hours I wasted watching it and the money I spent on it.

Coming out the horror-comedy Zombieland, I was surprised how much I liked it. I was personally getting a little tired of zombie films, but then Zombieland made me want to see ever more zombie films. It is a funny, original, cool film with a lot of awesome zombie killing. The film stars Jesse Eisenberg, who you may know from such films as Adventureland, Roger Dodger, and The Squid And The Whale. He plays Columbus, a boy who survived becoming a zombie because of his long list of rules. He figures he's the only non-zombie left, until he meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a man who doesn't have any rules. Tallahassee also is dying for a Twinkie. Watching Eisenberg and Harrelson make sparks off each other's characters is great fun, even more so that their characters are different in every way imaginable. Tallahasse and Columbus soon meet Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abagail Breslin) in a very, very, very funny scene. They are two more non-zombies. Mike White is hilarious in a 5 minute role as a gas station clerk that they show as a couple of examples before becoming a zombie, and Bill Murray makes a hilarious cameo. White and Murray alone make Zombieland worth seeing, but there's about 500 more things to love about Zombieland. This is a very, very, very highly recommended film in my opinion.

This cheesy movie is based on a video game and is often unintentionally hilarious. A totally wooden cast battle heroically with absurd dialogue to often amusing effect. The budget here has been totally blown on the scenery, special effects, and costumes (which admittedly look very nice, especially the natty blue soldier uniforms which Van Damme and his cohorts wear), so it 's all very colourful and visually stimulating. Unfortunately those expecting a serious film will be extremely disappointed as this movie is aimed squarely at children, never for once engaging the brain. The loose plot simply has loads of different characters moving from one situation to another and fighting a lot of the time. Sounds confusing? It is. We're talking bombastic here, not subtle.I actually like Van Damme's performance in this film. It's obvious that it's supposed to be a light, fluffy film yet he never once breaks into a grin, instead being commendably straight-faced. The only thing I didn't like was his red hair! Here he gets lots of tacky one-liners which even Schwarzenegger would refuse to speak, and they're often funny because they're so cheesy ("Only somebody out of their mind could attack Bison's island by boat." "That's good, because General Bison has driven me insane").There are a few familiar (and sometimes out-of-place) faces in an otherwise unfamiliar cast (picked solely for their physiques more than anything else, it seems, especially the lame Bruce Lee wannabe and the Marc Singer-lookalike who play Ken and Ryu). Raul Julia has a ball playing the evil dictator, and it was the actor's last film, as you can tell by the star's gaunt, pale appearance. The film is actually dedicated to him as well. A lot of people have commented on what a bad film it was to bow out on, but as I said, Julia looks like he's having fun in his over the top, overtly villainous role so kudos to him. Simon Callow pops up as a stuffy official for no particular reason and Kylie Minogue's role is still a mystery: her acting abilities are non existent, she has about two expressions and thankfully she's hardly in it.The action when it comes is supremely stylised and over the top, as you would expect. Characters battle it out for ages and do all sorts of quick, physically-impossible moves. The film loses some credibility when introducing the Blanka character - in the computer game a fearsome green monster, in the film a laughably poor and shoddy rubber suit which looks worse than the Incredible Hulk did. They do make up for things by having a hilarious ending battle between Van Damme and Julia, where dictator Bison gets hover boots and shoots Van Damme with lightning from his hands, RETURN OF THE JEDI style. Movie buffs will also notice a high number of references and in-jokes, some surprisingly subtle, some blatant (Godzilla-like fighting as two men flatten a model city). STREET FIGHTER is a really bad film, yes, but it's entertaining with it, and never boring. All right if you're in a silly, affable mood.

Films like these don't come along very often. Perfect acting, directing, music, characters, story, cinematography and so on. To me The Dark Knight is one of those examples that will be remembered for a very long time to come. Everything that has been said about how wonderful this film is is true.The action is massive and beyond epic. But in-between the high flying punches and explosions its the acting that sums up this mastery. All the actors prove their worth as masters of their profession.Christian Bale has characterised the greatest Batman ever. His portrayal as Batman is brilliant and we finally witness this characters struggles, ambitions and morales all onto screen for the first time.Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker is so chilling and monumental, menacing and pure that no other actor could had pulled that off. His presence on screen lights up and your left with, what i consider to be the greatest performance by any actor.To conclude, The Dark Knight is a perfect film. Perfect in a sense that i think has never been seen before and that wont ever be seen again.R.I.P Heath Ledger

Especially if you've already seen the theatrical release, the director's cut adds so much more to the story and the other character's of the film, and even fills in some of the holes in the plot of the original version (holes which, by the way, were big enough to drive a Hummer through them.) While a few well-liked scenes were taken out to make room for over 35 additional minutes of original footage - scenes such as the love-making clip with Affleck and Garner - trust me when I say that those missing or re-edited bits actually help the story to make more sense.And while those who aren't fans of the Daredevil comic or theatrical release probably won't care if the story makes more sense (which is all too unfortunate for them,) the fans will appreciate it.Now, while I'm not saying the director's cut should replace the original version, I am saying that I certainly enjoyed it. Hell, I own it. And I can say without a doubt that I like the director's cut more than the original.As with any of the other comments that I've written for other films, I know I haven't revealed much about the film itself. That's because I am a big believer in the notion that you should see a film for yourself, and form your own opinion. Except for "Torque". Nobody should see that film - unless it's being used as a torture device.

The whole thing is far fetched, the girls barely speak let alone try to help themselves, the main character (girl) sees the man get in the car and does nothing, the ending is ridiculous. James Mcavoy was great in this movie, it's a shame the plot was so horrible. No good twist and not scary or creepy at all...just plain strange. Especially the whole Bruce Willis ending. Don't waste your time!!

I'm really surprised people have rated this as high as 7/10. It was another one where the trailer made it look better than what it was. Occasionally Panic Room threatened to get interesting but never was more than ok.We had the entire cinema to ourselves for this & 20 minutes in I could see why. It was handy as we were able to regularly say to each other "why is she doing that" or "I thought that couldn't happen" without bothering anyone. Likewise we had a loud chat about what a stupid idea it was calling a boy Sarah, before eventually one of us suggested it may be a girl.Anyway, the film. The main problems (aside of the cliched to death, diabetic girl who needed her sugar intake) was the flaws & inconsistencies. I was aware of some beforehand & thought I could put up with them but they became really irritating. Leaving aside the propane gas error!(1) You had a panic room which you could only speak out of, not into. By the end of the film it had reversed & Jodie was speaking into it. There may have been a reason I missed, but even allowing for that would have created more questions.(2) We're told at the start there are sensors so the door of the room would not shut if something was in the way. Fine. What happens later? Jodie traps the villains' hand in there. Why did it not open again? If it was because the hand was between the 2 ultra violet sensor lines (and not through them) why mention it at the start at all? Forget the sensors completely & it would have worked better.(3) Then there's a brief allusion to Foster's claustrophobia at the start, that miraculously disappears without trace as the film went on.(4) Why tell the police she was fine, and then immediately proceed to smash all the cameras up? Surely the latter would've angered the villains' just as much as the former.On top of that, what a gas lighter was doing in the room I weren't sure, nor why they couldn't have use the hole looking out to push something(s) through to gain help. The ending also seemed a rush job, infact the final scene seemed of no purpose whatsoever other than to suggest the moral of the story was 'don't live in a big house.' The directing from Fincher (and I enjoyed Seven & The Game) become a tad over the top by the end moving through wall, so did the over emphasis on darkness.The story could moved along quicker but was best suited to a one hour TV crime show , not a film. But even allowing for the Home Alone esque villains, the acting wasn't bad & I've still seen a lot worse.3/10

NOW I know why the U.$. was the COP-blocker at the recent COP2... After decades of Chicken Little politics courtesy of the Fossil Fool Industry - not to mention the Right Flight From Reality-, it's good to have a pair of Heroes to root for (again). They were on our side THEN and they're on our side NOW. (And anyone who thinks that the conspiracy theories enumerated by Mulder in this episode are in any way, shape or form far-fetched, be advised that that is just the very TIP of the proverbial iceberg. Check out DEMOCRACY NOW! or LINK TV and NOTHING you've seen- or WILL see- on THE X-FILES will surprise you. Unlike Corporate "news," which is pre-chewed for those who can't stomach The Truth, the "Holy Worriers" and the Political Errorists, DEMOCRACY NOW! and LINK TV offer FACTS backed up by more facts.) We've seen this before, in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE INVADERS and THEY LIVE (which is one reason I still think John Carpenter's monsterpiece would make a great TV series) and THE X-FILES itself (to rattle off but a few of the finest examples), but it really doesn't get old- not as long as The Powers That Be refuse to allow for an Industrial Evolution.

The drama Bicycle Thieves is directed by Vittorio De Sica and stars Lamberto Maggiorani and Enzo Staiola. The film takes place in modern day Rome , and modern day is in the 40s because that was when the film was made.The film starts off with a man yelling the name Ricci (Maggiorani) who is a person that gives out jobs. Ricci goes to the man and finds out that he is getting a job that pays very well but he needs a bicycle. His bicycle is getting repaired and it is not supposed to be done for a week and he needs it for the next morning. Ricci goes to the repair shot and pays extra to get his bicycle. His wife and son are very happy for him and he is extremely excited to go to his first day of work because he was so unlucky in the past. Unfortunately at his first day of work while gluing posters to the wall someone steals his bicycle. And that is when the chase to get his bicycle back begins...The screenplay for this film received an Oscar nomination which it well deserved, and it probably deserved to win as well even though I have not yet seen the film that did win. The writing was so simple, so pure and that is what I loved about it. It was easy to watch yet extremely thought provoking. The film is truly amazing because the plot is so basic but it is just so powerful. I don't wish to spoil anything but the ending is absolutely brilliant as well. The screenplay for this film is a masterpiece and I wish more of them today were like this.The direction for this film also was quite simple, which made it quite brilliant. There are only few films that get me so emotionally attached to their main characters. De Sica does not use complex shots really at all in this film yet I still think it is one of the best directed films ever made. It is hard to describe, the only word I can really think of is pure. De Sica did not direct this film to make money or to win awards, he just directed it because it was what he was born to do.The acting for this film was as well superb. Maggiorani plays Ricci and he is fantastic. He is just a simple man who wants his bicycle back so he can get money to support his family. He is the everyman and Maggiorani played the role perfectly. Enzo Staiola was Ricci's son and he was just the normal kid and he also did his role perfectly. It was like the two of them weren't acting at all they were just that real father and son. The supporting cast as well did a spectacular job.Overall I give this film a 10/10 and I'm proud to call it my new second favorite film. It is perfect in every way and I recommend this film to absolutely everyone. If you don't enjoy then I must say that you don't see the beauty in simplicity.

Excellent movie! It shows the real India. Beware, if you have never traveled to India before! Fabulous actors & a terrific story line. It is one of the most interesting stories portrayed on the big screen that I have ever seen before. The interweaving of all the different plots is outstanding. This is a true love story & rag to riches story. I can't wait to read the book. It is exciting, heart-warming, and heart-wrenching, all in one. It keeps you on the edge and wanting to see more. Not to mention how involved one can become in cheering for the characters. It is a "must see!" It is made by a westerner, therefore, it is not a typical "bollywood movie" at all. It has just enough "bollywood" in it to provide an excellent ending. Go see it!

There was perhaps no more important film made in the 90s. While many important film either fail in one way or another either as a statement or as a piece of fiction this one excels in all facets. Whether or not you agree with Oliver Stone's theories based on the findings of Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison this film should present enough evidence such that one would be left in doubt as to what happened that day in Dallas. The complex web of conspiracy in this film also goes to prove why some people have been so willing to disbelieve conspiracy for so many years: it was just easier that way. As a drama it also works tremendously well the cutting and inserting of images which Stone used for the first time in his film has not been as effectively used by him since. John Williams's score is emotionally stirring and acts as a call to action. All the acting in this film is stupendous and further adds to the overwhelming impact that this film has. No matter what the next major political subject matter any filmmaker decides to tackle it'll be hard to match 'JFK.'

Until the cute animated closing credits referenced the "Nurse Matilda" books by Christianna Brand as the source of star's Emma Thompson screenplay, I thought "Nanny McPhee" was a charming new take on a "Mary Poppins" for a new generation.Unlike P.L. Travers' creation, this Nanny 911 is much more about the children themselves learning to use their wits and initiative for more than making mischief. While the girl children are uniformly bland, the boys are quite captivating with their actions and bright dialog, particularly Thomas Sangster who was also quite good in "Tristan & Isolde" (though the baby should be a toddler not an infant in terms of the time line of the mother's death and the family's grief recovery). Colin Firth is endearing as the beleaguered widower, even if his job as an undertaker is Roald Dahl-like macabre for a kids' movie. Too bad Derek Jacobi and Patrick Barlow play his assistants like broad imitations of Quentin Crisp. Angela Lansbury has her best role in years as the snobby aunt. That Imelda Staunton's cook was ex-Army added considerably to her character. The education of Kelly Macdonald's maid was sweet side story character development. Celia Imrie plays up the sex-starved bit too much for a kids' movie, though. I was actually disappointed that the Nanny started to look more and more like the real beautiful Thompson as the children learned to behave.The production design is cotton colored candy delightful, even as it gets more and more fanciful. The wedding scene is uproarious, with broad food fight humor that children will love. The vaguely Victorian setting added to the fairy tale feel, and there are several amusing references to nursery rhymes and fairy tales, particularly about wicked step-mothers.There are a few big vocabulary words in the dialog that young children won't understand but they also won't need to follow along.Patrick Doyle's score is a bit overpowering at times but is still appropriately light-hearted.

Oh boy. Great actors, great setting, great potential and such a let down. Totally wooden performances. It seemed all of Winslet's energy was focused on her comic american accent and Elba was too busy with his bravely worn smirk hiding his pain. Bridges absoutely stole the show and he was in it about 10 mins !!! Camera work was good. Abu-Assad should steer clear of "love stories".

Five words: Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin. "It's Complicated" isn't avant garde, isn't a complete breath of fresh air, isn't a message movie, isn't shot artistically to make it look important. It is a very enjoyable, funny, and at times, hilarious movies that captures the audience's interest, that brings us back to the good old feelings that were so popular in the 30's and 40's when screwball and the art of comedy was at its best. This film might have been a feasible option in the 30's. It has the right ingredients: a series of misunderstandings, likable characters, a funny comedy of errors, some priceless genuine comedic acting, and most important, real chemistry among its main players.In a nutshell, a divorced couple find a way to revive the spark and the love that brought them together in the happier times. Meryl and Alec have done some very good work comedic work before; what wasn't expected is how good they are when they are work together. We really believe they were a real couple, with a background history, with strong ties, and in this storyline, real physical attraction. Meryl gives, as expected, a marvelous, well rounded performance, but the most astounding surprise is how well Baldwin matches her note by note, and how expressive his face really is. We read enthusiasm, regret, love, tenderness, and some wacky emotions along the way. They can also play naughty quite nicely.There is some amazing support by Krazinsky and to a point, Martin, in an underdeveloped part. Overall, the film is bound to earn a spot among some of the most entertaining films ever made. There are some classic bits here, and just like "Mamma Mia", it provides the audience with lighthearted, hilarious fun. There are scenes where a touch of depth is thrown in to resolve the story and the fates of the main couple, and it is not preachy or forced. There is some honesty in them. What takes away from turning this into an instant classic is the problematic ending. Without going into details, many members in the audience appeared as puzzled as I was because, even though real life has strange ways of dealing with situations like these, it appeared as if the level of satisfaction wasn't what it should have been. Personally, the resolution bothered me, and the question I pose is: Did it bother you, too? It is not the worst ending, but it wasn't the best either...

While lacking the taunt pacing of WRATH OF KHAN, VOYAGE HOME and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY as well as their humor, STAR TREK: NEMESIS is easily the best STAR TREK with the NEXT GENERATION crew and possibly the best since WRATH OF KHAN. With a complex story line, exciting action sequences (especially the space battle) and a reasonably generous sharing of screen time among the crew (Deanna Troi actually provides a KEY element to the resolution!), STAR TREK: NEMESIS is a rousing contribution to the franchise. I've never fully warmed to the NEXT GENERATION crew, Patrick Stewart in particular. Picard, as written, is usually an insufferable prig, while Stewart generally reflects the worst conceit of British actors (I'm doing THIS until they call me for KING LEAR). Here, Stewart is surprisingly warm, making it far easier to relate to his character's predicament.The last half hour plays like a retread of WRATH OF KHAN; and, while NEMESIS never rises to the poignancy of that film, the action elements more than make up for that lacking.Now that Stewart has proved he can actually PLAY Picard, one hopes the character will be `bumped up' to Admiral and any future films will concentrate on Ryker, Troi and the rest of the NEXT GENERATION cast. Certainly NEMESIS proves there is still life left in the STAR TREK franchise.

First I must say I had heard about the book, I saw the book on sale everywhere, and really dismissed it as maybe a cheap porn story that somehow got over on the young general public. But, then as time went on I began reading stories in the news of increased pregnancies among women who have read the book and in some cases were experiencing what they believed were fertility problems prior to reading the book. After reading the novel they became pregnant with out the use of fertility drugs and they say that this story inspired them and helped them relax enough to become impregnated. I just had to see the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is at its core a unique love story about give and take, selfishness and selflessness, love and appreciation. It's about "The Hunter Gets Captured by the Game". It's about love hurting and healing. If you're going in for the sexual freak aspect you are missing the underlying story which is quite an emotional ride. See this with someone you love or want to love. It may make a big difference or a new start. The two young actors had great chemistry. I will eventually read the book. Uniquely this is sex selling love.

The best thing this drivel had going for it was the artwork. Some scenes were very pretty. Apart from that it was a disgustingly oversentimental attempt to outdisney Disney. the plot didn't make much sense and the characters were all somewhere in the range between mildly annoying and making me want to scream SHUT UP at the screen.

The problem with this movie is not with its cast (with the possible exception of the consistently awful Nicole Kidman). Nearly all acquit themselves very well.Nor is it with the special effects. Readers of the book will be relieved to hear that the bear fight is as epic as could be hoped.Rather, the problem is a crap script, and tedious pacing. The film fails to engage. Its narrative relies on the assumption that you've already read the book and are simply in the audience to see the fantasy world realised.And indeed, if this is the case, you will not be overly disappointed: the visuals are stunning. It's just that the work is badly adapted, and slow. I spent most of the movie wishing, if they weren't going to bother to tell the story could they just get on with the good bits already? It's almost as if the film knows it sucks: by leaving out the climax of the book - and thus neatly avoiding your expectation of a sequel - the film acknowledges its utter failure to engage you.

As in the original 21 Jump Street, the social conscience and relevant topics aspect of the television series are left out again. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill after really messing up a big drug bust are back at the Jump Street program which has now moved across the street to 22 Jump Street. Their captain Ice Cube has decided the best thing for them is a trip back to college where there is a major drug problem with some new designer product.The bonds however look like they're going to fray as they gravitate to different crowds. Tatum looks like he's going to join the Animal House crowd as he gravitates to a fraternity where the stuff is known to be used. He bonds with a pair that look they could be John Belushi's brethren with Wyatt Russell and Jimmy Tatro.Who'd have thunk it with Channing Tatum in the film that Jonah Hill would get the girl. Hill gets himself involved with a literary crowd, some poetry slammers and Amber Hill. Of all the young women in the world how did he wind up nailing his captain's daughter?The comedy is straight out of Animal House and there's certain enough action to satisfy those of the movie-going public who prefer that. Will there be a 24 Jump Street? Possibly, but I'm not going to put the rent money on it.

This remake or reboot what ever you what to call it, it not as bad as other Classic horror remakes like Friday, Elm street and The Omen however I don't think was good as some other remakes.I did expect a lot more from this movie after all the hype it got, I thought there would have more gory then it was. I thought there were some good decent gory scenes which Did like but nothing we not really see before and I didn't really find the demon creepy or scary at all.The rest of the movie, well it wasn't boring, it was fast paced Before I knew it was over .Again another trailer that shows the best parts of the movie that lead to the rest of movie not having many surprising moment which makes the rest of kind of predicable.The acting decent from most of the cast, I could not connect to them at all and effect was not bad but as fun as originalI give this movie 5 out of 10 Average horror movie

I once took a class in screen writing in Hollywood and there was general agreement that this was the best screenplay ever written. A couple of trivia points that may be of some interest. There was a great scene with the wonderful actor Royal Dano that for reasons never made clear Polanski edited out at the last minute. It happened just before Gittes goes in search of the Orange groves in the valley. That was a mistake by Polanski. There was a scene in the script in which Gittes is in an airplane flying to meet Noah Cross for the first time where the pilot actually tells Gittes that there was a rumor that Cross had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. BIG mistake by R. Towne to foreshadow like that and the right decision by Polanski to cut it out. Also, Polanski and Faye Dunaway absolutely despised each other on the set culminating in the now famous confrontation with Polanski actually dropping his pants and pissing on her script notes in front of her. Just a great movie all around!

First off, Bruce "Ash" Campbell is one of the coolest guys on this planet. If you need a reason to watch this movie, he's it.I would describe this movie as a Roller-coaster-ride. Its lots of fun with some good action and hilarious one-liners. The one thing this movie lacks is HORROR. The original Evil Dead and its sequel got some good old fashion horror. This one is more of a mix between slapstick and "Jason and the Argonauts". I would have liked to see some more gore in this third installment."Army of Darkness" is a very entertaining movie, from the beginning to end but it's not as dark and gory as the first two films.There's a Director's Cut available (including the original ending) which hasn't much to offer in my opinion. I prefer the Theatrical Cut.

WARNING SPOILERS! I watched this film because critics had lauded it so highly, and because one of my favorite actors, Michael Caine appears in it. Mr. Caine does fine work, as I suppose everyone in the cast does, but the characters and story line were so annoying, irritating, selfish and stupid, I could barely sit through it.Even the children at the orphanage were not exactly speckled pups in a little red wagon.First we have Michael Caine's character Dr. Larch, who is basically a father figure to Toby Maguire's character Homer Wells. Now on the surface Dr. Larch appears to be almost an angel--here is this saintly Dr. caring for these unwanted orphans, and being kind and loving. But Dr. Larch wants to browbeat Homer into also being a doctor, and we get the distinct impression that is not necessarily what Homer wants to do.Dr. Larch also has a problem dealing with reality when it comes to the orphanage children. These children are so protected from reality they have no concept of it whatsoever. When a young child dies, Dr. Larch secretly buries him, and the other children instead of attending a funeral and coming to terms with the fact there is such a thing as human death--are lied to, and told the deceased child has been adopted.I wondered, toward the end of the film, when an adult personage who worked at the orphanage passed away, if the kids were going to be told the adult had been adopted! Then we have Charlize Theron, as Candy Worthington, and her boyfriend Wally--who apparently are too stupid to use birth control--and too selfish and irresponsible to marry and become parents. But not to worry, Dr. Larch will solve that little problem that's getting in their way of a good time.Homer decides to suddenly leave the orphanage and go pick apples instead of becoming a doctor at the orphanage, which is what Dr. Larch plans him to be--never mind that he has no schooling and has not served any kind of internship at a hospital.Wally goes off to war, and Candy is left behind with a bad case of "hot pants." Well there's Homer all handy, ready and willing-- faithfulness is not part of Candy's make up, and Toby feels no loyalty to his friend Wally--so soon he and Candy are rolling in the hay. I fully expected her to have a second pregnancy and abortion.The love scenes between Candy and Homer were definitely nothing I'd care to ever have to see again. Toby McGuire is a fine actor, but he is about as far from being a romantic leading man as you could get. His character, quite frankly, came across as an ignorant,homely nerd.We also have a little side story with some blacks who work at the apple farm. Now I'm quite familiar with migrant Mexicans traveling with the crops--but this is the first time I've ever seen or heard of any migrant crop and fruit picking blacks traveling with the crops.Get the barf bag ready because here comes the worst part of this movie--Rose Rose, one of the black migrants, gets pregnant. And just guess who Daddy is. What makes this so barf-worthy, however, is how they make this man, who is guilty of completely selfish lust--turn into this sacrificing, caring, sensitive person. Character reality flew completely out the window on that one.Then we learn that Wally is now paralyzed from the waist down. Good old Homer is more than ready to marry Candy, but no, she may shag everything in sight, but Wally is her one true love--yeah, right! One can only wonder how someone with the kind of sex drive Candy obviously has, is going to be able to deal with a husband, whom we are led to believe, has become totally impotent. But that's just one more stupid decision a character makes in this movie.Definitely THE worst film I have seen in some time.I voted it ONE star because I could not vote anything lower.

Characteristic of David Lynch, this film is typically surreal and blacker than the sky on a moonless night.Following up on the TV series this film picks up before the series started and explains it all. I doubt very much that Fire Walk With Me stands up on its own but it does stand as very much more than a TV spin off.*spoiler alert* The mystery of who killed Laura Palmer that ran through the series (if anyone has not seen the series - sorry she does die at the end) is explained here. What we see is her slide toward the inevitable conclusion. What should be tender and romantic, sometimes even erotic is crude and seedy and often just nasty. This is as it should be.As we saw on TV a steady stream of hints is presented as to who her killer would be. It is a testimony to the vision of David Lynch that I was able to identify the killer early in the series, this being down to a professional familiarity with some of these matters. Even the red herrings could not throw me off because they only ever seemed to be an irrelevant distraction. This standard of observation is carried forward into the spin off movie.Missing for fans of the series are some of the side characters and sub plots, so don't come expecting to learn much more about the mill or the hotel or whatever. The biggest disappointment is that there was never a second film to follow up on some of those. There are a lot of unanswered questions (where did the missing FBI agents go - what about the paper letters - what does the blue rose mean). What the film does deal with makes sense of some of the key mysteries of the TV series. As far as it goes this is a fine piece of work.

Once Upon A Time In The West is no ordinary western. Despite the non-descriptive title, this is a film that redefined the genre. With his dollars trilogy, director Sergio Leone proved that he was the master of the spaghetti western; with Once Upon A Time… he transferred the conventions of that genre – the operatic sense of drama, the nihilism, extreme close-ups, epic widescreen photography, Ennio Morricone music and moral ambiguity – into Monument Valley, the setting of the traditional American western. The result is pretty unforgettable. Leone tells a simple story via images. Looks, as opposed to dialogue, are used to convey meaning wherever possible. When characters do speak, their lines are significant. Every bit of dialogue is considered, no one talks unnecessarily. This combined with the phenomenal cinematography and unforgettable music results in a sort of operatic minimalism. The western has never been depicted so artistically.There is a real feeling of time and space. The opening credit sequence where the three gunmen wait at the train station typifies this. Instead of launching straight into the initial confrontation, Leone waits. Insignificant details become epic. The fly and the dripping water for instance, are given real significance, and are integral to the pace of the scene. Nothing of narrative significance happens, not a word is said but the pacing and magnification of the smallest details add human depth to what would otherwise be cardboard characters.There are four stand-out performances from Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, Claudia Cardinale and Jason Robards. Bronson plays Harmonica the mysterious stranger, Fonda brilliantly cast against type is the cold-eyed killer, Cardinale is the stunningly beautiful woman in the centre of the narrative and Robards is the grizzled outlaw. Together, they are terrific. And Leone moves them around the widescreen frame quite beautifully. Morricone's score once again is quite outstanding. The haunting harmonica theme is a particular standout; only Morricone could make a harmonica sound so sweeping, evocative and mystical.Once Upon A Time In The West is truly epic film-making of the very best kind. It's a western of intense emotions and brilliant acting; of peerless photography and ground-breaking music. It illustrates perfectly how to use cinematic space and how to pace events within it. It refashioned the western and brought the highest cinematic artistry to Monument Valley. It goes without saying that it is a masterpiece.

Everyone involved in making "Justice League," and everyone who will eventually see it, deserved something better than this. This movie is a pointless and expensive CGI that even Gadot's Wonder Woman luminescent star power, can rescue. Given the generic state of the plot and how uninteresting the characters are, "Justice League" wasn't worth the trouble. For me this movie is the most mediocre, boring and pointless A-list superhero film going back through the nearly 40 years of modern superhero films. The problem is that it had the potential to be great, epic and exciting but is one big incoherent and loud mess that, unfortunately, has failed to deliver an unforgettable cinematic experience that the fans have been waiting to see.

Supposedly based on a true story. The producers certainly know how to make a relatively simple story interesting. It feels very believable with a great performance by Pacino. There is some touches of humor. One of my favorite part was when one of the bank clerk hostages pulled out a cigarette and Sal tells her to put it away because it's not healthy. Almost all the story takes place either inside a bank or on the street just outside. The premise is simple - Sonny and Sal attempt to rob a bank and are surrounded by the police. In order to get out of this, Sonny and Sal tries to cut a deal with the sheriffs by using the bank clerks as hostages. Seems like all is going well for Sonny and they actually make it all the way to the airport. The ending, by the way, was just a little too short and simplistic. I expected a little bit more considering how much time and suspense was built-up until that point. Everything else was great though.

Normally, I approach comic translations warely - they tend to be rather hokey and predictable, and this was no real exception. That being the case, this film was an awful lot of fun to watch, despite predictability and 2-dimensional acting. The action scenes were better than most of this genre' and the plotline made more sense than most other comic-movies. Snipes proved himself to be a consummate action-figure star once more in this film. The only disappointment I had with this film was it's en-masse treatment of most of the vampiric characters... but that's more a problem with my enthusiasm with real horror films than with this production in particular. This is not a real horror film, and horror film fans will be disappointed - but if you want a hell of an action ride, see this film!

**** May contain strong spoilers ****This is a review made by StoneDraim... and that means that if you want to read a probably different kind of review, keep reading....This is my personal experience, my personal point of view/perspective and my personal opinion... and my opinion is just one of like 7 billions in this world.Perfect startoff for this kind of movie. A solemn little piece of music placed right into the 70's adult industry is in front, just to get cut off with a solid funk act... known and placed in the 70's. Really nice!There is a sense of a theme park during this film as it begins and stops with a typical theme taken from the late 70's and the early 80's adult industry. A little charming and careful tune as from a barrel organ that sets the entire tone for the movie. There is things going on all the time during the around 160 minutes of movie... something around every corner.Is this sarcasm to the adult industry? Is it a show off in how the stars and crew behind the scenes acted and acts? It can be both. It 's all in the eye of the beholder.The naive and total lack off integrity in the adult business is shown off in a huge comic sense during the whole motion picture. A lot of examples could be taken care of here... see for yourself. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg is excellent together and touches that "fake innocence" that the adult industry tries so hard to develop and force upon the viewers.Over to the movie as a product: - The production : Good work and well performed production. "Best written screenplay written directly for the Screen", Academy Award nominee. Amazing excellence in the costumes and the surroundings during the era of 70's and 80's. - The actors : Julianne Moore and Burt Reynolds nominated for Academy Awards. Burt Reynolds won a Golden Globe for his performance. - The story : As it is almost 20 years ago since the movie settled, it was and is an important movie. Before the global phenomenon of the internet "amateur adult" industry came into the light. About this time, there were documentaries about the adult industry and business getting television time globally. Yes, an important movie and I would say the time was right. Maybe there could be a Boogie Nights 2 now with the same actors to shed light on today's industry in the same business. - Entertainment : Tragic, sad, little laughs here and there. All in a positive entertainment way. - Age : 15... or 18, depending on the sexual explicit, language and violence.7,4 out of 10. (The final rate is based most on my own entertainment of the movie. Short elucidation of the rating: 8 Excellent movie and a solid production 7 Well made movie. Proper entertainment.)

How I remained in the theater until the end of this movie, I do not know. Perhaps it was the hope that something enjoyable and satisfying might yet occur, but alas that was not the case. I am truly baffled as to how this film received rave reviews. Many of the scenes contained long, long meaningless pauses and not much else. Just awful!

"Batman and Robin" is the disaster of the century- nay, the millennium! This movie was terrible to say the least. The opening sequence began promisingly, as Mr. Freeze (Schwarzenegger) tries to steal a diamond, but Batman and Robin (Clooney and O'Donnell) interfere with his plans.However, the movie goes downhill as soon as the scene shifts to South America. The introduction of Poison Ivy (Thurman) and Bane (Swenson) was poorly executed to say the least. (In fact, Bane seems to have been raised by monkeys or something. His communication is limited almost entirely to grunts or growls.) Having said that, Schwarzenegger's portrayal of Mr. Freeze is sacrilegious. He is now a man armed with a big gun, constantly speaking a never-ending river of puns involving ice or cold. And Clooney's Batman is TERRIBLE! For example, he tells Robin that Alfred is dying. And when the camera cuts to him, he has a ridiculous grin on his face!However, there are two bright spots, as far as acting is concerned. The first is Michael Gough as Alfred, Bruce Wayne's ever faithful butler. As with every movie, he really makes the character his own. It was tragic to see him in such a disaster, but he tried his best. Second, I was quite surprised at Alicia Silverstone's acting. Sure, her character was completely ineffective and unnecessary, but she seemed to be the only one who CARED that the movie was a disaster. Ineffective as her character was, she still did a decent job. But not even their Heraclean efforts prevented the movie from being a disaster.As to the plot itself, it is very poorly written. It has all the elements of a good superhero movie... NOT! The childish romantic triangle between Batman, Robin, and Poison Ivy is so terribly executed, you begin to wish Ivy'd just kiss them both and finish the movie.In short, if anything happens to prevent you from seeing the movie; if your television breaks right before you press "Play"; heck, if you're run over on your way to the video store, you have been saved by a miracle! The movie is awful, to only scratch the surface.

When I first saw this movie on opening night I was amazed. Alan Taylor did an outstanding job on this movie. The Visual and Special effects were absolutely breathtaking. The script was incredibly well written with the humour Marvel movies are famous for.I very much enjoyed the character changes in this film. Thor (Chris Hemsworth)changes from arrogant prince to a true hero. Loki (Tom Hiddleston)changes from trickster to a broken hero.The cast in this film did an incredible job, was not disappointed. The battles were epic and well choreographed.This movie contained so many twists and turns that kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time it was playing. I was not disappointed. I feel Marvel did a really fantastic job. The movie deserves more then ten stars.The rest of this review contains spoilers. If you haven't seen this movie yet, please stop reading it.Stan Lee's cameo was hilarious and perfect as usual. Chris Evans' Captain America made a little cameo that I really enjoyed (I was wearing my Captain America sweater when I watched it)."Thor: The Dark World" had a plot twist that was completely unexpected. Loki died. He died a hero and I very much appreciated that. He died protecting his brother, Thor. I cried when watching that part, which I have never done before while watching a movie. Thor's reaction to this big moment was perfect as was Hiddleston's performance. Loki didn't actually die. Of course he didn't, he is the God of Mischief. The ending is what got me. Thor is having a talk with Odin, saying that he cannot be king and asking if he can stay in Midgard(Earth). Odin eventually lets Thor do so, but here is the part where I was stunned by: Thor said thank you and left. Odin was actually Loki and he said "No, thank you." Then the movie just ended and I was sitting in the movie theatre thinking: I have never been Loki'd so many times before.

I decided to watch this film because of 2 reasons: I'm a fan of the original Prince of Persia games, and I like some movies where Jake Gyllenhall is. But this was a total deception. It was a movie without emotions, boring since the first moment. It seemed like someone woke up one day and decided to make a movie about Prince of Persia without any script or any idea on how to make a movie INTERESTING. And, at moments, this movie seemed like a parkour advertising.

Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.Its an epic movie. The best movie i have ever seen. Winning three Oscars make you think that its not an ordinary movie.

I can't believe how complete awful The Phantom Menace was! This film had no plot, originality, or storyline. The film had the most BORING characters with the exception of Jar Jar Binks who is quite possibly the most annoying, childish, and irritating character ever to be shown on a big screen. The Matrix deservedly won four Oscars over the awards that The Phantom Menace was nominated for making TPM the first Star Wars film to NOT win a single academy award. Also, the numerous Razzie (Worst of the year) awards just goes to show how awful this film was.The Phantom Menace feels NOTHING like the classic Star Wars trilogy. Let's hope that Episodes II (Attack of the Clones) and III (Fall of the Republic?) are a 1000 times better than the complete travesty that is The Phantom Menace! One on a scale of 1-10 and that's because I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan, just not a TPM fan!

In the 1920's, labor was hard to find. If you happened to be a laborer, work was almost non existent. Indeed, if you were unemployed and in Mexico, your chances were dismal. Yet, these were the times, which attracted many South of the border. The place was barren, yet many a fortune could spring up directly before you, . . .if you were luckily enough to see it. That is the story behind this incredible film. The legend of El Dorado was only one of the many myths which lured the adventurous to Mexico, another was "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." The gold of the Mother of Mountains was passed from father to son for generations. Thus when the film adaption was made, it was sure to be sculpted by men of vision. One such man is legendary John Huston who directed this film. Three common men are lured by the promise of discovering a lost treasure. The first is Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) a nice enough guy who wants only to be fair, but is hungry to 'strike it rich.' The second is Howard, (Walter Huston) as honest as you expect him to be and a man of considerable experience. The last is Bob Curtin (Tim Holt) who if given a chance, will use it. The trio make a PAC to share and share alike all the treasure they find. However, only Howard is aware of what the possession of Gold can do to a man. To find the treasure, they need the mountain, some hard work, a little luck. To bring it home, will require something only one of them possesses. The film is a Classic and is due to the combined talents of all the stars and the director. If you look closely, you'll see Robert Blake (Barreta) and John Huston in brief roles. ****

As a JP fan there was no chance i would ever miss a Jurassic movie.The trailer was promising enough(the trailer was the whole movie btw) Anyway the movie started and it didn't took more than 15 minutes to start wondering why the terrible acting,childish scrypt and dialogs,awful clichés and a really predictable plot.? OK i was aware that i was not looking Inception but come on every person knew from the start who's gonna die or fall in love or say something stupid..Anyway i fall asleep for some minutes and the only thing that kept me from leaving the cinema was the fact that i had to take my gf home after that.Stay away from this junk.They just wanted to make some money after all.

I don't know why "Sex and the City" got such bad reviews. I thought it was an okay movie, if you are in the mood to watch four, exceptionally fit, 40-50 something women parade around in outlandish fashions, and suffer and wisecrack through contrived relationship problems. The clothes are a scream, the relationship issues include possible divorce / break-up, pregnancy, and marriage. Solutions to relationship problems include a dream vacation at a five-star Mexican seaside resort.The movie is too long, and it is shallow, and the male characters all seem more like Ken dolls than real men, but those aren't fatal flaws. Maybe people didn't like it because it wasn't enough like, or it was too much like, the TV series. Moving a TV show to the big screen is hazardous. Whatever. I enjoyed the movie for what it was: a fashion show with wisecracks, and something of a plot.

I can't even start and state how disappointed i was after watching the movie for the 2nd time (1st in the cinema, 2nd time on DVD). After watching it for the 1st time i left un-pleased and un comfortable from the outcome but now after watching it for the 2nd time, i and i have to say that everyone i know (family, friends) are saying that this might be the worse Bond movie ever (by the way many reviews here concur with what i have written and added much more). If these are the type of movies Mrs Broccoli is planning to make, maybe she should take out Bond for A retirement as Bond has nothing and i mean it nothing to sell, nothing to show for. The latest movie is just not reliable in any sense, the opening scene was so silly, Bond enters an apartment and sees a wounded agent, he looks for the bad guys that shot the agent and once he exists the building (in Istanbul) he is picked up by "agent Eve" and somehow the car of the bad guys is driving in front of them! They did not have to search for it, nor did they miss a step when agent Eve picked up Bond, and let me say that the scene just gets worse and even more unreliable as agent Eve shoots Bond, he hears her that she is going to shoot and he is in the way, he can Easily move out of the way (simply duck, or jump aside) but he continues fighting the bad guy just to get shot! This are just a couple of examples, the entire movie is full with holes, the bad guy is portrayed as a resourceful guy and at the same time as a complete idiot who makes all the wrong choices. The movie is suppose to be an adventure thriller (as the Bond tradition), but it is more like a drama. Even the scene that ends the movie is idiotic, Bond takes "M" and goes to Scotland to the mansion where Bond grew up, while they all know that the bad guy who has countless resources will follow them (they even leave clues for him to come to them), now with an old guy that is looking after the mansion and "M", Bond is suppose to fight an "army" (an un creative army just as the production-direction-script of the movie, complete armatures). If this ending scene would have had happened in some deserted spot on the planet it just might had been kind of acceptable but it is Scotland! Why can't Bond/M/The old guy pick up A cel phone and call for the "Cavalry"?? Actually the folks at headquarter at "M's" office know where she is, so why not send back up? Bond is portrayed for the 3rd movie now like someone with no brains, but someone that counts on his muscles. Maybe these are the capabilities of Craig? If so i think the time has come to let him go and if they cannot re-create a decent Bond movie they should just stop milking this cow and stop torturing the public with these awful movies and send Bond to retirement, we the audience deserve better and I take comfort in the fact that we will always have the memories of Connery and Moore.

I was lucky enough to see a preview of Half-Blood Prince three days before opening day. I saw it a second time with my son who is not quite ten, but who is generally mature for his age and doesn't scare easily. The two viewings give me the unique advantage of both the adult and the child perspective on the movie. I only recently started counting myself a true Harry Potter fan after my son introduced me to the movies a couple of years ago. I finished the last book only three weeks before seeing the movie adaptation of Half-Blood Prince the first time.With all the book details very fresh in my mind, I had high expectations of the movie. And Yates, the production crew and the cast definitely delivered. The movie impresses on many levels from an artistic point of view. The stripped landscapes and washed out colors convey a constant feeling of dread and foreboding. The standard train trip to Hogwarts was particularly stark, seen against a landscape scorched by a hot summer sun and dotted with dark pools of water. The usual lush greenery and joyous train ride are nowhere to be seen.Personally, I felt the pace was spot-on and that the movie elegantly made time for all key plot points. But only if you enjoy a plot line driven by character and emotion. For the younger lot, looking for frightening wizard duels and attacks by magical creatures, the first hour and a half of the movie drags on a bit. My son certainly became fidgety, and didn't appreciate the finesse and sophistication of the plot and cinematic approach.Most of the threatening and darkening tone of the movie was also lost upon him, whereas I reveled in the finer details contributing to a general sense of ever-encroaching darkness. There are worse things in life to be afraid of than big hairy spiders. My son missed seeing those - I was a lot more intrigued by the ominous undercurrents made palpable by the indomitable trio of David Yates (director), Steve Kloves (screenplay) and Delbonnel (photography).Some people feel that the romantic comedy aspects played too large a role in the movie, but I felt this aspect added some much-needed lightness and human drama to the movie. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) all find themselves dealing with the vagaries of young love - from dealing with unwanted advances to finding love in unexpected places. The romance was aimed perfectly at the young teen market, and I found myself cringing ruefully at some of Lavender Brown's love-obsessed stunts and smiling wistfully at the tenderness between Harry and Ginny. Haven't we all been there at some stage of our lives?All in all, Harry Potter is growing up. And so is the market for these movies. If you've seen all the movies up to now or read all the books, and your are at an age to appreciate the adult themes and movie techniques, this movie should fall pitch-perfect on your ear. You are likely to leave the cinema filled with a heart-wrenching sadness for innocence lost. Purist fans will most certainly complain bitterly about numerous sub-plots, events and characters that were cut from the movie and the odd scene that doesn't exist in the book. But Yates' truly gutsy adaptation really works and brings a depth and clarity to the main themes of the book that is quite extraordinary. He manages to capture the lingering lightness of that time before the serious business of adulthood sets in, alongside the relentless buildup to the final showdown between The Dark Lord and The Chosen One. And the lack of closure at the end of the movie is no accident, I believe. Just like the book, this movie leaves you aching to see how it all ends (never mind the fact that you already know).I must also commend the acting. The young leads have all matured in pace with the maturing content of the books and their acting shows it. Rupert Grint shines brightly in the somewhat Shakespearean love comedy he finds himself in, and makes the most of his new-found sport hero popularity. Emma Watson hits the spot, portraying Hermione's emotional vulnerability with gentle confidence and softness.As for Radcliffe, it's easy to miss the evolution he's undergone as Harry, since there are other actors ostensibly given more to do in this outing, like Tom Felton and Bonnie Wright, both of whom get the opportunity to take their characters to a new level. Tom Felton, especially, does a remarkable job. But Radcliffe's task of playing the steadfast and courageous, yet not flashy or arrogant hero, remains a difficult one. Especially on second viewing, it becomes clear how his understated and controlled performance speaks very much to the type of man Harry Potter is shaping up to be. A man who is left with a tremendous responsibility at the end of this movie and takes it up without flinching. The boy-wizard is no more.Of the older guard, Alan Rickman's Snape was a consummate performance, ... obviously. And Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore never felt more right than in this movie. Jim Broadbent's Slughorn is deliciously played with just the right mix of off-putting sycophancy and endearing pathos.All in all - a triumph all around!

I really enjoyed this movie. There was great balance between the time spent in the jungle and time at home in England. Generally the movie moved along at a good pace, though there were some parts that dragged a little bit. The special effects were great and kudos to the make up crew who did a great job making Charlie Hunnam and Sienna Miller age gracefully from young adulthood into middle age. The ending was both hopeful and heartbreaking, really making you wonder what ever became of Fawcett. The scenery was breathtaking and the challenges of the Amazon seemed very real.

Visually flawless but a terrible script ruins it. This review I read on Prometheus website is great and sums it all up...In the roughly 10 hours since I walked out of the theater last night, my mind has continued to process just how awful this movie is. It's unbelievably bad - everything you've read is true.The flute. The white, squishy buttons on the Engineers' control deck. The captain intuiting that the planet is not the Engineers' home planet but rather the place they developed their weapons of mass destruction - which of course begs the question of why the Engineers were instructing ancient civilizations as to how to reach not their home planet, but some remote place where they made weapons of mass destruction, Vickers and Janek strangely going off to have a quickie in the midst of what would have been the biggest discovery ever made by man and with two crew members stranded inside the temple - which in turn was inside a huge dust/electric storm, the very strange and ineffective scene where Vickers reveals that Weyland is her father - at which point no one cared, Vickers and Shaw running for hundreds of yards to try to escape the rolling Derelict ship when it was painfully obvious that all they needed to do was run a few yards to either side - in fact when Shaw trips, all she does is roll about three times and she is out from the path of the Derelict (which then stops and tips over on her but still), the stupid scene with the Engineer's head where they reanimate it and it explodes - which didn't seem to have any effect on anything in the movie at all, the list goes on and on and on. It's just an embarrassingly bad movie.But I don't blame Lindelof. I place the blame for Prometheus squarely with Ridley Scott. Scott chose Lindelof as the writer. Scott surely saw or could have seen the complete train wreck this film was going to be very early on in the shooting process and could have stopped it. To think that Scott waited 30+ years to revisit his masterpiece and then did this to it is almost unthinkable. But it happened. So it's unforgivable.

I was impressed normally by this movie.Of course the based on reality scenario, the screams of people and the effects of scenes were really frightening, haunting and also a good reason for people to watch this thrilling movie.However It wasn't the devils or exorcism that made me nervous and excited in this movie, it was the unexpected movements of people and a family's struggle to survive. Secondly and personally I believe in devils and their bad effects on human but this doesn't mean that devils seizing of human body and force them to do something in order to reach their goals.In normal life you can't see something like that.So there shouldn't be any horror movie talks about devil exorcism any more.

I can usually think of something good to say about even the worst movies I've seen, and Revenant is no exception: Great special effects. But that's it! There was nothing believable about this awful thing from start to finish. Oh, I suppose I could add that, once we were resigned to the disappointment we had a lot of laughs before the much anticipated closing credits. DiCaprio... well, whatever. But what in the world was a fine actor like Tom Hardy thinking? At least he was paid. My advice to you is, don't throw your time down this hole. I wish I hadn't.

this is one of the funnier films i've seen. it had it's crude moments, but they were full of charm. it's Altmanesque screenplay, brilliant physical humour, and relaxed friendships were a pleasure to watch, and a slice of life most of us can relate to. and i can say with a measure of honesty that i was afraid for Steve Carell's nipple..i truly was. surprisingly, this is a good-natured, unabashed comedy that is essentially about love, and the many relationships we may find ourselves in along the way. Catherine Keener was terrific as Trish, and all of Steve Carell's friends were flawed but amiable, and so much fun. the idea that they suspected that Carell was a serial killer is a hilarious metaphor for a forty-year old virgin. but the simple truth was that he wanted to be in love first. original, charming, and very funny. highly recommended.

The focus in "Law Abiding Citizen" is on one Clyde Shelton. In the beginning of the movie, he watches his wife and daughter die at the hands of a pair of textbook thugs. Gerard Butler flawlessly executes a role that will keep you guessing through over an hour and a half of well thought out killings, tauntings and flauntings. There is the occasional predictable death after an incredibly snide remark or one character's brash overconfidence; you'll see it coming a mile away. However, the story is fantastic and by the end of it you'll find yourself rooting for Clyde, who is supposed to be the bad guy. Jamie Foxx plays a District Attorney who is, of course, your standard movie attorney. The system is perfect, we do what we have to do, push your morals aside, so on and so forth. The movie centers around Clyde who, ten years after his family's death, embarks on a well-planned mission to bring the system down in a way that he only describes as "biblical." This is an enjoyable thriller and it's well worth the money.

.. with an excellent action movie. The Story continues with John Connor, the son of the ancient target of the terminators: Sarah Connor. This time, a female terminator called TERMINATRIX was build to search and destroy John Connor, the last hope of the humans. But Arny came back.....The action, the actors, the story, the sound and the graphics of this movie are very good and so the viewer quickly gets to know that he's sitting in a terminator-movie that is nearly the best one of the seriesT H A N K Y O U A R N Y......

------SPOILERS----- Octopus as aliens!! REALLY !!!! - my grand daughter could have drawn more convincing and frightening aliens than the highly paid special effects bods did for the making of this B movie. Oh, and the space craft - truly pathetic. Honestly, 1960's science fiction films are just as well done with better story lines, more suspenseful and eminently more watchable. The story was laborious, uninteresting and overly complicated. This was a film that so desperately needed kick starting but it's engine just would not fire up. I was looking forward to seeing this movie, the hype pre-launch offered such promise but what a deception that was. I now feel cheated. 8.3 - where on earth has that come from, you only have to skip through the reviews to see that this rating is impossible. Complete pretentious RUBBISH.

When I first heard about this I thought it was going to be a classic haunted house story, I was expecting an updated version of "The Haunting" (1963), creaking doors and shadowy figures. What I got was similar but it didn't seem to flow as well, I seemed to be waiting for the next spooky scene, though when they appeared I wasn't disappointed. I was expecting a spectacular twist in the plot and I wasn't let down, its a very clever idea. The film isn't really a haunted house story its more of a look at ghosts and well I can't say anymore without spoiling the ending but all the scenes are leading up to the clever twist at the end. Overall a very clever and original film but not really a horror. But still 10/10.

Whoever is responsible for this film should write Arthur Conan Doyle a fervent letter of apology for using his legendary detectives name in vain. Had this film been called the "Marvelous Adventures of Chuckie and his sidekick Frank" it may have passed as something of value; as it is, it is a revisionist trashing of the Holmes brand. Nothing about the character portrayed by Robert Downey even comes close to suggesting the persona of Holmes, except maybe the pipe and that was thrown in, it appears, as an afterthought. The plot is silly, the lines ridiculous and the acting is minimal. When the arch villain asks the Houses of Parliament why they are surprised to see him, when all think him dead, it puts an exclamation point on one of the saddest and silliest movies I have seen in a long time. Sorry, Arthur, better luck, hopefully next time.