Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

Greatest Jeff Bridges movie ever. I absolutely loved this film. It has everything: Woman, drugs,guns,theft,porn,bowling,humor,and a great cast. Nothing better than a bum who bowls with his 2 loser friends, one who never listens and the other who is a Vietnam Vet who is ALWAYS reminding you of his experience. One stolen rug starts off the heist of millions. And The Dude is stuck in the middle of all of it. He's pulled in every direction while trying to figure out who kidnapped the wife of a millionaire who happens to have the same name, Jeff Lebowski.Thrown into this film are German Nialists ("We Believe in Nossing,Lebowski!!"), Eccentric naked painters, and a bowler accused of pedophilia. Thrown into the mix are a bunch of great scenes that may not make sense if I tried to explain...sooooo...Rent this movie as soon as you can!!! Her life DEPENDS ON IT!!Your life will change. My life will change. The Dude only wants his rug back. GO!!! NOW!!!!

Rarely, very rarely, I give such high rating of a film. Maybe it can not reflect it fully but still it shows my willingness to represent it to you.It starts a little bit and untypical but this is what the fairy world of the fantasy, without which we can not, is. Because fantasy make us to dream what we want to see, to go beyond our limits - to emerge from the aquarium rather than sink into it and drown.Crucial moment: the heart of the damsel, crossing point for all human worlds. And man's, and woman's; of children, and of elder people; of the young and of the adult. Crossing point where only harmonizing balanced worlds can become one and create new world.Balance is also one of the movie's elements. Measured doze of humor, action, adventure, fairy tale and tension. In order of appearance it presented us a story of ghosts, witches, flying ship who's captain (one of the biggest) is a lightening strikes hunter.The audience also becomes a ghost because this movie comes to life in front of them without an interest of their existence. And that in this case is good because his majesty The-mentioned-above can fully transmit in it and dream on.http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/

I must say, dang, I underrated this film immensely. I must say that it was very well done, and I enjoyed it. I thought it was just another love story film, but I was wrong. It was suspensful at some spots, and funny in others. I must recommend this to anyone....

If I ever got together with a group of my friends and made a movie, it would probably turn out to be a lot like Pineapple Express. It's an action/comedy in the vein of Get Smart, but minus the spies and with an R rating and some weed thrown in. All the different parts of the movie work well. The action scenes are hilarious, the dialogue is hilarious...it's the funniest overall movie that I've seen since Zack and Miri Make a Porno. We're talking about some of the most hysterical fight scenes that I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Rogen and McBride do their usual thing (which I honestly don't think I will ever get tired of), but Franco's jocose character was completely unexpected. I never knew he had it in him!I'm glad to know that Rogen is a guy that I can always count on for some laughs. Pineapple Express doesn't leave much room for criticism. There's a dangling little plot threat with Amber Heard that I would have liked to see addressed at the end of the movie, but that's only because I thought the other scenes between Seth and Amber were so funny. If that's the most that I can find to complain about, then there's nothing left for me to do except admit that Pineapple Express is simply a great comedy.

In theory, a thriller about magic should be a winner. The illusion of magic is achieved through confidence and misdirection, perfect ingredients for a tricksy plot. Yet many of the best thrillers are also already confidence and misdirection without the aid of magic; confidence tricks within plots, but also, the guile of the film-maker in misleading his audience. And there's even a further layer – one watches a fictional story on an implicit assumption that it obeys a set of rules implied by the way that the story is told – but the film-maker can break this compact. In extremis, magic in movie can actually be real.Which means that the film-maker has many layers of illusion at his disposal; but also the temptation to over-egg the pudding. The set-up for 'Now You See Me' is corny but brilliant – four cocksure, mainstream, Las Vegas magicians may (or may not) have engineered a real crime under the cloak of their magic. To work, such a film needs to have a theory of how this could be done that is both cunning and plausible, one that can trick both the victims within the story, but also the real world audience. And if the film seems to hint that there's real magic behind the trickery… well, that only adds to the atmosphere. But the power available to the film-maker can also be abused. In this film, as in Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige', a character "disappears" by falling through a trapdoor. I have no idea whether real world magicians are sufficiently skilled to distract their audiences from noticing. But I'm sure that in neither film was an actor filmed falling through the door, but rather that the disappearance was conjured only in the editing room. The director could defend himself by claiming to be showing what the in-story audience believe they are seeing (as opposed to what they really saw), but this means that the film's real audience have no independent appeal to their senses, have to take it on trust even as they're being deceived. Although it's not a magic film, the plot of 'Now You See Me' has elements that resemble 'The Usual Suspects',- a film whose final plot trick was both breathtaking and inane (with the appearance of a character the film had just explained to us did not actually exist in a layer outside the story in which he had been created).'The Usual Suspects' was, nonetheless, well done in a way that 'Now You See Me' is not. The tricks in this film might be technically explicable, but they're so over the top, so sophisticated, so contrived, they're not remotely plausible – indeed, they seem to have been conceived by the scriptwriters mainly because they make for good cinematography. And the plot's final bait and switch, and revealed revenge motive, are tired devices. One thing I did like, though, was the swaggering stage personas of the magician-criminals – you could certainly believe that such a crew could pull something off, though sadly not this – a more modest affair might actually have been good.

This is a really wonderful film, I applaud Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, James Horner and of course, Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly for masterly bringing the subject of John Nash to life. Ron Howard has done some really great films before (including Willow and Apollo 13) but this is probably his best. With Russell Crowe, he was able to convey how John Nash thought when he looked at numbers (you saw numbers flash to life here and there as the camera moved around John Nash), while the beautiful piano ballad and Charlotte Church's voice accentuated the musical atmosphere created by James Horner. Though the film does go on a bit too long, the other aspects of it truly make up for it. Hope you have the chance to see this beautiful film.

At the time of this review, people rated it a 7.8 overall. That's what made me go to this movie along with some positive commercial reviews. WOW! What were they thinking!?! CGI was fine. If only humans would have been excluded from this movie. The leader of the Kaijus was the only one with decent acting skills. Otherwise, I would put this a notch above Skyline and you know how bad that movie was. Tried too hard at humor and hand-to-hand fighting / training scenes. Both were unconvincing to put it mildly. YOu take a risk with unknown actors/actresses and it showed. Remember Starship Troopers? They had unknown actors at the time, but at least the director made the movie flow. There was no continuity in this one, much less acting. Save your money. Wish I did.

In watching how the two brothers interact and feed off of each other through the whole movie makes me personally happy to live in the rural area much like they did in the movie. I have watched this movie countless times and have the book right beside my Bible. After watching the movie I agree that this is one of the few movies that does a book justice. I strongly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to Montana to fish or be outdoors to do so. It is amazing. I can not think of anyone else that could play the role better than Brad Pitt. Do yourself justice and watch one of the better movies in the modern movie era. STRONGLY Recommend And as a guide for fishing trips in both Montana and Wyoming, do not try to learn how to fly fish from the scenes of the movie because although it looks great on the film you have no idea how much practice and skill fishing like that actually takes. Thank you for listening Watch this movie please if you would like a long sad movie.

This gross-out coming-of-age comedy from the American Pie stable is absolutely hilarious from start to finish. The reason why it works so well is because of the realistic characterisation, they are not stereotypes but people anyone who has been to high school can relate to. Also the narrative is densely plotted, leaving space for all manner hilarious mishaps. Disguised under all the brilliant comedy is a delicate message about friendship and its connotations and that makes the chemistry between the characters more believable. Also the supporting cast is great, particularly Christopher Mintz-Plasse making his debut as McLovin, every scene he was in creased me up. A great teen comedy, with hilarious one-liners, a more complete film than Knocked-up and Virgin.8/10

Such an horrible return. The new Prison Break fails in pretty much all departments. The acting is as bad as it has always been, the story is full with plot holes and awful dialogues.While the action scenes are badly shoot, as we have come to expect from FOX. Only good thing about the return of Prison Break, is the music by composer Ramin Djawadi.All in all, this is unwatchable to say the least.

This is one of the best movies of the 1990´s, and it definitely shows that Kevin Costner doesn´t deserve the bad reputation he has got. He is a great actor and most of all a great director. "Dances With Wolves" is a grand and touching story of a wounded soldier in the american civil war, who chooses to take service in a small outpost in South Dakota. When he arrives, he finds the fort to be empty and abandoned. The only contact with other beings he get is with a wolf called Two Socks and with the local sioux-indians. After a while he gets interested in the indians and their way of life, and eventually becomes a member of the tribe. But the american soldiers are coming...

First i must say, well done Mr. Roth, you've proved yourself in the horror community. This was the most pumped i've been for a horror movie in my entire life, i read sooooooooo much about it online from all the people who saw the uncut version at the Toronto Film Festival. I don't know how that version was, but this one was great. A slow, but affective start... we got to know the characters very well and learn a little about Amsterdam in the process. I must warn all men, do not take your wives, girlfriends, or mothers to see this film...there are more boobs then all the American Pie films put together plus Euro Trip. I had heard that Eli Roth was a big Takashi Miike fan and that he was heavily-influenced by Audition in the making of Hostel. This got me excited and my excitement was fulfilled. The torture scenes were very similar, but not too similar, still original. The camera did not cut away too often either, we saw most of the action. I was also pleased with the level of gore in this film, during a certain eyeball and puss scene a man in the audience left which is always a good sign. I'm rambling. Well, if you are either, a fresh off of puberty boy, a thrill seeking person, or a straight up horror fan I highly recommend this fantastically made movie. Kudos to Eli Roth, and i hope he continues to push the limits with his film-making.

With the departure of Edgar Wright to direct this film (director of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End and Scott Pilgrim), everyone went nuts. Everyone thought this movie would crash (with no survivors) and fail miserably because if you look at what happened with X-Men 3 (wherein Bryan Singer departed as well and Brett Ratner took the job as the director and we all know how that ended up). This film has been on the plans for years and some even stated that Edgar Wright's script for Ant-Man was one of the best they ever had. So without the snappy and hilarious cuts or shots that Edgar Wright usually makes, how did this film fair? Thankfully Marvel did not stray away from their magic and still was, at moments, reminiscent of Wright's style which benefited the film as a whole.When going into this film, people are generally obviously gonna have mixed feelings for this. Whether you're a Marvel fan or just a general moviegoer, you're seeing this because it's a superhero film and it's by Marvel. Personally, that's how I felt and before entering the cinema. But once again, like in Guardians of the Galaxy, it was utterly surprising. Ant-Man is one of the special marvels that Marvel has accomplished considering the bold moves they've done. Right off the bat, when the Marvel logo starts showing up, the recurring Mexican music and happy-go-lucky feel is there. Paul Rudd is absolutely likable in playing Scott Lang and Michael Douglas provides an excellent and significant character in this film as Hank Pym. The dynamic of passing on the torch hasn't been as relevant and significant in superhero films and it was fascinating to see this play out really well. The acting was hilarious and outstanding. Michael Peña's charismatic and happy-go-lucky nature truly were the scene stealing moments. Evangeline Lily as Hope Pym was great as well and also surprising, is the fact that the villain in this film (Darren Cross/Yellow Jacket) was actually really menacing and had good exposition as to why he's "evil" which past Marvel films have suffered from not doing. The villain was like Obadiah Stane from the first Iron Man film and he was on par, if not better than him.Moving on to the plot, I have to say, it truly is one of the better and special films Marvel has pulled off. The whole idea of emphasizing on a heist brought a whole new layer of excitement to this film. The whole set up in the first act of the film was average at best, but when the second and third act came along, the film started to boost to hyper drive and was nothing but pure fun and hilariousness. It was built with great tension mixed with comic relief that worked as a whole. The dramatic elements of the film was moving and did not feel out of place more or less. Now the tie-in to the Avengers was surprising for most people (who didn't see the TV spots). There were plenty of references that are sure to bring a smile and even hyperventilate some hardcore fans. Now on to the action and visuals of this film, Industrial Light and Magic nails it once more. Whenever Ant-Man shrinks and if you take a look at his surroundings, it looks so real because it was indeed real. The use of photo realistic CGI to enhance the background and insert Ant-Man in there provided a great 3D experience and gave way to excellent and sometimes snappy and well timed action sequences. The action set pieces were small, however the film brought in a large scale feel into it. There's no city falling down, there's no headquarters being crushed by a helicarrier, but it felt so huge and grand that I was surprised it gave a great taste at the end of the film. Of course the humor was still intact while the astonishing action was ongoing which always have been proved to be a great mix when it comes to Marvel movies.As for the flaws in this film, there really isn't that much that comes to mind because this film was just downright fun. If it's to be ranked and compared to the Marvel films, it's on par with the first Iron Man and definitely Guardians of the Galaxy. Much better than Marvel's previous film Age of Ultron.+A well made plot and premise, +Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, Michael Douglas as Hank Pym and the cast, +An actual menacing villain for once, +Heist, +Action and Excellent use of visuals bringing a great 3D experience. Verdict: 8.6/10

Loosely shaped around the plot structure of William Shakespeare's 'Hamlet', Disney's 'The Lion King' follows Simba, a royal lion cub, in his life following the death of his father. Touching on friendship, identity and responsibility, 'The Lion King' is timeless, standing firm as one of the most popular Walt Disney Classics of its era.More than fifteen years since its release the film requires no introduction, for so much of its content contributes to the now iconic imagery of the title. Its place in popular culture is certified, from the international adoption of the 'Hakuna Matata' philosophy (hopefully lacking the movie's connotations of life without ambitions) to its uplifting soundtrack, featuring classics composed by Sir Elton John such as the Academy Award-winning 'Can You Feel The Love Tonight?' (Best Original Song, 1994). There are undoubtedly many loyal fans of 'The Lion King' worldwide that can recite numerous pieces of the well-constructed dialogue, including the wise teachings of the shamanistic monkey Rafiki as well as the wisecracks of Timon and Pumbaa, the meerkat and warthog duo that introduce Simba to a life with 'no worries' following his exile. As seen in the work of the studio prior to 'The Lion King', anthropomorphic animals are crafted with an endearing sense of the human condition that relates them to viewers in a more intimate manner, amplified here to a heavier degree by introducing the concept of family burdens. Emotions such as grief and loss add a poignancy to many scenes that goes unrivalled by live action productions, upholding the belief of many that animation is not at all a format, but simply one manner of telling a story. 'The Lion King' is inspirational on so many levels and in such varying contexts that it proves memorable to the diverse range of viewers that it already has, more than a decade since its initial release. Long live the King indeed. 10/10

I'd been looking forward to seeing this film since the day I first read a rumor that Mel Gibson was going to do a film about the Passion entirely in Latin and Aramaic. I knew this was going to be a very special film long before it made headlines and became the center of great and unnecessary controversy. Yesterday I was not disappointed. Josh Sewell has already put it more elegantly than I can when he writes, "I've been rendered nearly speechless... The Passion of the Christ... defies the typical 'it's good' or 'it's bad' mentality of a review. It's so visually gripping, so heart-wrenching and so emotionally draining that writing about it simply can't do it justice." The film begins at night in the garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. Jesus (played by Jim Caviezel, an actor I have great respect for ever since his excellent performance in Kevin Reynolds' film of The Count of Monte Cristo) is betrayed by his disciple Judas to the high priest Caiaphas and, next morning, brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judaea. Originally, Gibson had intended The Passion of the Christ not to have subtitles, saying that the acting was to convey enough of the story for subtitles to be superfluous. Later he compromised and had the film subtitled. The subtitles do make the details of the story clear, so this particular compromise was not a bad decision, but I suspect from the generally quite stylized acting that Gibson still intended not to have subtitles while he was shooting. That the Passion was filmed entirely in Latin and Aramaic was a stroke of genius, and part of the great lengths Gibson went to in order to achieve a sense of historical accuracy. I certainly cannot fault his portrayal of the Romans: they do admittedly speak Latin with an Italian accent (partly because the actors are Italian, partly because they were coached by a Jesuit who presumably pronounces Latin consonants the medieval or modern Italian way), but they speak it fluently, as if it really were their everyday speech, and all of them look right and act perfectly, and their clothing, armor, weapons and hairstyles are completely accurate as far as I know. Pilate himself is actually played by a Bulgarian (which is audible in the way he pronounces the letter L) who really looks the part and manages to convey a lot of powerful emotions restrained by military and political discipline.Caiaphas demands that Jesus be executed for blasphemy. Pilate refuses but, terrified that he will have a bloody uprising on his hands which will result in his own execution on the orders of the Emperor, orders his second in command, Abenader, to have Jesus severely punished in the hope of appeasing Caiaphas. Abenader unwittingly delegates the task to a group of sadistic soldiers who cane Jesus and then, probably provoked by his incredible stoicism, scourge him. The scourging is one of the most horrific and bloody scenes I have ever seen, and rightly so. The film has been criticized for being sadomasochistic, a criticism that is idiotic. We are bombarded every day with scenes of violence intended as entertainment, desensitizing us to our detriment. The Passion of the Christ shows violence for what it really is in all its true, disgusting, dehumanizing horror, a horror that takes on a further dimension when I consider, through my tears, that I have just paid to watch a man being ripped to shreds while the people all around me munch loudly on popcorn.Caiaphas is not satisfied and demands that Jesus be crucified. Pilate tries one last time to avert the inevitable. He tells the mob that they can save one condemned man from execution and tells them to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, a murderer. To his disbelief the mob choose to pardon Barabbas. Jesus is to be crucified.Another criticism of the film has been that it is unrealistic in that, amongst other things, Jesus is forced to carry his cross to Golgotha after having been mortally scourged. Do I need to point out the irony here? When Jesus falls on the way and seems unable to continue, the accompanying Roman soldiers rope in the unwilling Simon to share his burden. When Jesus falls again, Simon finds that the cross the horrifically injured Jesus managed to carry a part of the way on his own cannot be born by an able-bodied (but mortal) man.Finally, the crucifixion. As Josh Sewell points out, "Most films about Jesus... make crucifixion seem slightly unpleasant". The Passion of the Christ shows exactly what this hideous form of execution really entailed.This is one of the best movies that Mel Gibson has directed.

For me, this movie really showed the difference between a good movie and a bad one. I sensed this "line" like no other movie I've seen. So I can understand someone giving a good review of this or a terrible review. I believed in the story enough to enjoy the movie but I was teetering on the "line" several times.

The movie "Zero Dark Thirty" has won a lot of awards for its amazing job in capturing the events surrounding the killing of Osama Bin Laden. The search began in the year 2001 and continued through until 2011. It is based on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden due to his destruction of the World Trade Center. The Seal Team Six was the main group of people who physically took down Bin Laden and his group.The bulk of the movie takes place in Iraq. The main characters portrayed in this movie were Dan, Maya, Joseph Bradley, and Jessica. Since the Al- Qaeda terrorist organization took down the World Trade Center, the then President Bush, made it a huge priority to put an end to Bin Laden and his group for good. Through it took ten years to bring the terrorists to their knees, it was well worth it.The real life person, and character in the movie, who is credited with actually finding Bin Laden is, Maya, played by Jessica Chastain. She was the one who ordered people to help find his compound. Maya did a great job in finding the compound. Jason Clarke, who played Dan, helped to get a lot of information out of the people who took part in 9/11.What I like most about this movie is how it captured the feelings of the actors and actresses. They depicted the movie well. Also, they really made you feel for the characters. I remember one scene very vividly, after Seal Team Six took down Bin laden, Maya went to verify the body. She gave a slight nod, to indicate yes and then left the body, started packing, and went back to Washington D.C. When she had all of her belongings, she went on the plane, and started to cry. I would say that Maya was very happy that Osama Bin Laden was finally killed. She had just spent the last ten years of her career working to hunt down Bin Laden, and now it was over. This was probably very overwhelming her. I felt truly happy for what Maya had accomplished.One of the lessons in this movie is perseverance and sticking to what you believe in. Maya stuck to what she believed in and her determination helped to bring down one of the most notorious terrorists. She played a huge role in the take down of Osama Bin Laden. Another lesson is, don't let someone in a higher position pull you down. You are all equal, no matter what position.The main group of people who would enjoy this movie would be adults, or people who were there from the beginning with 9/11. Also, people who were or are a part of the military. Lastly, people who are interested in the history of this country would enjoy it.

Just watch it, You will not be sorry, It is a great all around solid movie that I can and have watched over and over again..... The acting is very solid and the suspense along with the Si-fi is just great, which even if you are not a Si-fi fan I think you will still love this movie. Any movie that Dennis Quaid has been in with very few exceptions is a pretty safe bet and for me this is some of his best work an certainly a movie he can be very proud of. This movie makes you wish it could be true and that something like this really could happen and to my remembrance does not have bad language. It is really a family friendly movie. I would really be surprised if you did not like this movie, maybe not on the level I do but I cannot think you will say after having watched it that you wished you had not....

In 2014, M.Tyldum impressed us with a masterpiece Imitation Game, he returned this year with ... Passengers (or mortal boredom), wanting to be an indoor movie, Passengers totally misses himself, during half of the film , No major event happens, one waits nicely, but it is only after one and a half hours, that one begins to understand, if you want to know, there is no twist, all Is unveiled at the beginning, the ship has just a technical problem that one hardly understands, there is no need to report the role of Laurence Fishburne which serves no purpose, it dies after ten minutes. Scenes that are meant to be action scenes are incomprehensible, and those that are well done are useless and have no impact on the rest of the film (as the scene or gravity is cut). There is perhaps a positive point of the film, the Arthur server interceded by Michael Sheen, between the references of Shining and his role in the film, it is only him that serves something and triggers events, It is he who reveals to Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence) that she was awakened by Jim (Chris Pratt), there is also a story without interest, that of the book that Aurora is writing, even at the end Does not know if it was finished ... The film ends with the rescue of the ship (whoo) and quotations like "you die, I die too!", Absolutely stereotype ... In summary, a big disappointment On the part of Mortem Tyldum which fell in the charm of the studios Hollywood, I hope that this does not foretell bode bad for later, but I wait to see the continuation.

Ah, Spike Jonze...the kid who once directed music videos for Weezer...and became the critics' darling with "Being John Malkovich," is now in the safe zone to deliver "Adaptation," a substandard film that, predictably, got some of the most glowing reviews of 2002. For all the hype, it's a remarkably average production, filled with huge distractions in the form of Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper, whose subplot and characters (and their resulting romance) are bland and unconvincing throughout--every time the movie cut away to this duo, it smacked into a brick wall. On the other hand, Nicolas Cage (cast as twin brothers Charlie and Donald Kaufman) gives his best performance in many years, the dual role giving him free reign to play a self-loathing loser and an over-confident himbo; his voice-over narration is some of the funniest I've heard since "The Rules of Attraction." Brian Cox shows up near the end to steal a few scenes as a vulgar screenwriter heading a weekend workshop. To its credit, "Adaptation" has a respectable buildup for the first 1 1/2 acts, then collapses when Streep and Cooper are snorting some coke-substitute and chasing after Charlie in a swamp--if this was a send-up of convention, it certainly didn't work. But, this type of sophomoric ridiculousness is safe to pull off if you are a critics' darling being hailed for your "unique vision." Spare me.5/10

If you think "Up in the Air" is about laying people off, you're only half-right. It's really about learning how to connect with people and the even tougher goal of learning to care about people. It's a feel-good movie about dealing with feel-bad stuff, and not to mention a solid charmer with lots of laughs, heartbreaking poignancy, and terrific performances. George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a hired gun for companies too spineless to fire their own employees. He enjoys his solitary life and considers planes and hotel rooms home, but a new business plan thought up by 20-something new-hire Natalie (Anna Kendrick) and meeting a fellow frequent flier, Alex (Vera Farmiga), both leave him putting his theories of life and love into question. Director-writer Jason Reitman offers unique ideas and funny lines about everything from the internet age, new view of feminism, the modern-day version of love, and traveling (one terrific scene has Clooney and Farmiga showing off gold-club cards). Clooney gives a smooth talking, confident, and comforting performance. He's also a romantic lead in the mold of a Cary Grant-type. If he doesn't get the Oscar, he should at least get some thank you notes from HR departments around the country. Farmiga has a very sexy chemistry with him (and not to mention a perfect ass) but sadly doesn't get much to do besides being the love interest. Still, this is many steps above "Orphan." And Kendrick's youthful innocence and naiveté is well played, proving to be a voice of reason and someone in-over-her-head at different points. Jason Bateman also shows up (as Clooney's boss) sporting a really horrible beard. It looks like someone smeared Nutella all over his face. Minor quibbles aside though, this is Reitman's best movie yet. It finds humor, heart, and inspiration when dealing with times of uncertainty, while always keeping it real with some nice twists. It's the best romantic comedy this year by far. So suck-it every other romantic comedy this year!

OK, so I never understood why people on IMDb or wherever else would need any detailed description of a movie before watching it. For me it was always - worthy or not worthy trying. So all I'm gonna say is: it's worthy. Worthy as hell. Just do yourself a favor and watch it. You won't regret it. But, as IMDb requires 10 lines of text for a review, I'll add it has unique value for people born before the era of smartphones and goddamned Pokemons. It's very nice to watch people living in a still analog world, in a moment when computers are just going to enter our lives. Not that I have anything against computers, I was born in 1979 and enjoyed Atari, Amiga and PC very much, but this show just takes you to your very childhood if you were born somewhere between 1970 and 1980.Once again - watch it.

Kevin Smith has done it again with his new release Dogma. Personally I think this movie is one of the best of the year and unfortunately it had so much bad press. Being Catholic myself I wasn't offended by this movie but in some cases it opened my eyes some aspects of my faith. To anyone who judges this movie before watching it is small minded and needs to stop taking things so personally. Was this movie offensive, to some extent yes but all of Smith's movies are. Was it entertaining, yes. Was it bad mouthing the Catholic church, not really but who I'm I to say what does. Trust me there's other movies out there that are more offensive to the Catholic church. This movie was by far one of the best movies from Smith and one of the best to come out in a long time.

First of all, "It Follows" is filmed and directed very well. I liked the upgraded 80's feeling the movie was set in. Sometimes the famous horror movies of that time where clearly visible as role models. This is also represented in the basic theme of teenagers coping with their sexuality and adolescence.Without spoiling much, the concept of the movie is that some kind of "disease" is transmitted by having sex and is following the affected persons wherever they go. The movie isn't that scary but you feel some sort of tension. There are nearly no jump scares and the movie feels fresh, which I really appreciated.The movie though has it's flaws. Strangely the parents of all teenager are absent most of time, even when serious s*** is about to go down. There is no excuse mentioned. Something that I also recognized is that whenever it's convenient "it" shows up, regardless of it's previous location or the distances. And my major issue was, that I would have liked some more explanation (not the simple ones) of what is going on or if not a more unexpected finish of the movie.Actingwise the main character of Maika Monroe is the only one, which was decent. Some of the supporting cast members really felt more like movie characters or actors than real life people.The movie is a different and enjoyable horror movie. But don't expect too much, though.

The word remake has to be the most popular word in Hollywood right now. So many films are being released recently that are remakes of previous films, especially in the horror/thriller genre. The worst part is that very few of them are any good. In a quick attempt to make a few dollars, movie studios stick to the same formula. The most important part is do not come up with original idea; instead just redo a movie that was already successful in the past. Second add a handful of inexperienced actors and directors. Finally pump a whole bunch of money into advertising and you are guaranteed to make a bad movie and rake in tons of cash in the process. This film is no different."When a Stranger Calls" stays close to the same premise from the original 1979 film of the same name. The sad thing is that even the plot from the first film was fairly bland. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is experiencing the usual high school drama and feels like nothing is going right for her. First her boyfriend ended up kissing one of good friends at a party. Then she went over her cell phone service plan by 800 minutes and now she is grounded for a month.Therefore Jill cannot attend the huge bonfire party that everyone in her high school is going to. Instead she has to baby-sit. When she arrives at the house the kids are already asleep and the parents give her a quick tour of their beautiful house. Once Jill is alone in the house she starts to receive odd phone calls from a person that says nothing. After the caller continues for some time Jill becomes scared and calls the police. The police call back and tell Jill that the calls have been traced and are coming from within the house. That is it. That is the whole plot and somehow they manage to drag it out to an already lacking running time of 1 hour and 23 minutes. Not to mention the first and last scene of the film should be removed because they serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It seems like the creators just threw the two scenes in the film in order to give it a longer running time.The infamous scene where Jill finds out the call is coming from inside the house was the driving force of the 1979 version, but the modern version uses the scene as its main advertising focus. This then ruins the only good thrill that the movie could have had because everyone already knows it is going to happen."When a Stranger Calls" is filled with plot holes, impossibilities, and inconsistencies that make an already poor film even worse. The movie also takes every opportunity to use a cheap scare when Jill goes multiple times to investigate a noise in the house and is startled by everything possible.The only praise that can be given to this film is that it does attempt to build up to a strong climax. "When a Stranger Calls" has a very classic thriller feel to it, which can only be praised so much because of the fact is a remake of a classic thriller. Unlike the trend nowadays where films have scares and deaths every few minutes in order to hold the attention of the young teen audience the movies are targeted for.The next thing to look forward to is when "When a Stranger Calls" comes out on DVD and the movie studios will resort to their second best money making formula. Release an unrated version that is almost exactly the same as the original.

This movie starts off introducing the characters, like all movies should, however it seems to emphasize all the negative qualities in every person. Most horror movies make you want one or two of the characters survive, but in this one I immediately wanted every character to die.The premise of this movie is a friend of the main characters buys a cabin in the woods, where the cast chooses to go for a party weekend. Before arriving they are greeted by an old angry cowboy who warns them of the danger, insults them, and then tells them to leave. The cast immediately starts treating him like crap. Then you find out the cabin is set up for them to all be "cleansed" and people in some organization are taking bets on what happens. They have to make choices of what happens to them and how they will survive. They shortly find themselves in some basement reading some book that rises zombies from the ground.I find it extremely difficult to get into this movie, because the constant cut scenes to the organization throw everything off, and add humor to every situation. Furthermore, the way this movie portrays "stoners" is deplorable. They make the character a burnt out long haired clueless pervert. He is so high that he mistakes a wolf for a moose, then blames it on being so high that he can't tell what is going on. This scene, and his whole persona is riddled with inaccuracy. First off, the fact that every horror movie that has a stoner makes him a dumb burn out is insulting, and really hurts the path of legalization. Secondly, "pot" has no effects that impair vision to the point of mistaking obvious objects that are not even 10 feet away. On another note, he's always spitting out these idiotic metaphors that do not make sense in any way. This is all proof that none of the people in charge of making this movie have done anything to try to be factual, and instead want to make some idiotic comedy like horror that is insulting to American media.And on a side note the only member of the cast that I consider to be a good actor dies near the beginning. My overall rating of this movie is a 3/10

Just a few thoughts after seeing the movie (spoiler free):This movie is an important one. It achieves something that not a lot of war movies can. Which is staying objective and not using (or exploiting) the perils and real suffering of men fighting in war for the mere sake of dramatization. Dunkirk is based on historical events. It should not be expected to please or entertain. Think about it: Why would you look at something like war and use it for entertainment? That is just wrong. I read a lot of reviews by people who criticized the film due to its lack of 'characters'. Well, this movie has actual humans. Are they telling me they can only feel something when they can identify with a character? If they know their backstory and if they are portrayed in a sympathetic way? "There was no emotion in the film?" "It wasn't romanticized?" Well, then maybe that is a problem with the viewer and not the film (there is always Pearl Harbor.. :v). And for the record, my initial reaction was also one of being a bit underwhelmed, maybe mostly because I expected something different, a narrative type of movie. I was waiting for some gripping storyline, action sequences and fleshed out characters etc, too. (And I will always love Saving Private Ryan) After the film ended my wife quickly said that it is her favourite Nolan film which then made me think twice about it. This film requires the viewer to have true empathy. To feel for another human being that you don't know and might not have anything in common with. It teaches us what actual unbiased empathy is. If you tell a war movie in a subjective way and create favorable and unfavorable characters you're mostly creating division. Why is one soldier's death more tragic than another?I appreciated that the Germans were 'faceless'. They were the enemy in this case, yes. But they weren't painted in an exaggerated, Hollywood-style demeaning way so as to create animosity towards them. The viewer isn't made to feel hatred. The Germans were simply the historical opposing faction.This objectivity is nicely reflected in the outstanding cinematography which used many wide shots and aerial establishing shots to show the global action. It focused more on the group, and not so much the individual. It also beautifully showed their movement in a given space. This objectivity demonstrates why Dunkirk wasn't really about individual people or characters, but the bigger group, the bigger picture, as seen in a historical context. (Oh, and dat 70mm film, mmmhh) If you look at the events of Dunkirk and what meaning they had for the outcome of WWII and maybe even history, it becomes more clear to choose an objective lens to portray these events in an unbiased way and from an elevated viewpoint. You are literally seeing history unfold from afar. I had one gripe with the film, which was the constant soundtrack playing. There were no moments of silence but that's just a personal nitpick. This is the type of movie they will probably show in history class and should. -Some real cinematic piece of art.

This movie has more plot holes than the usual John McClane-Environment. Which is a lot. McClane travels to Russia to help his son, Jack. Jack is supposed to testify against the imprisoned Russian Komarov, who has a "powerful" enemy outside the court: The statesman Victor Chagarin. Not that anything of that really matters. Anyway, McClane Junior isn't so happy about his father appearing there. He takes John's gun and all money. That doesn't stop McClane Senior from buying or trading a needed Elevator-Card from a random hotel guy. What did he trade it for?Later they arrive in Chernobyl. Dangerous place. All evil guys are in special protection suits to be safe from radiation. Not that they needed them. Because they had the stuff to negate the radiation all along. They could have just used it, but wait for it to happen till the radiation gets so high that even the suits won't help. Apparently. It's all blurry, really. And that's not due to the radiation.We have that "plot twist" where Komarov's daughter pretends to betray her father just to reveal that she was working with him all along and in reality betrayed Chagarin. Which could be a surprise if it wasn't so obvious. But the one thing that's really annoyingly senseless is the fact that literally everyone was working for Chagarin and ever since the plot twist they all suddenly work for Komarov. I mean, they flew him and his daughter there. What for, if they were working for them anyway? Just to have the one and only loyal servant of Chagarin executed during the "twist"? Sure thing...Also makes you wonder who the heck even attacked the court in the first place and why. With his connections and almost everyone secretly working for him, Komarov could have gotten out of there any time. But for the sake of the film length they had to fill it with some desperate attempt to create a plot, I guess. Introduce the "powerful" Chagarin to attack the court in order to get a file from Komarov (which didn't even exist) only to render Chagarin utterly helpless and meaningless later.It's the first movie from the Die Hard series that felt rather disappointing. I'd give it 5 stars to be at least "average" in my book, but that wouldn't be fair. Even with Bruce Wills and all it just has too many flaws. It can't even build up any tension or suspense. So it's a 4/10 from me: Below Average. Casual action movie fans "can" watch it, but don't expect too much.

As a huge fan of all that is John Hughes, it was no surprise to discover certain homages paid to its teen movie predecessors. Even in the score of the film there was the underlying beat of that Risky Business mood music (or something closely resembling it) in key scenes with Emile. In a film that could have easily turned to garbage with boobs and butts galore, the filmmakers never forgot that what we were dealing with here, is simply two kids trying to be comfortable in their own skin. They discover a balance in each other and fall head over heels. And why wouldn't they? I can't remember the last time in any recent release where two characters were able to communiccate so much through their facial expressions and eyes.So what if the premise is far-fetched. We could all pick apart the logistics of such a scenario with its ridiculous improbabilities. However, the reason we all fork over our hard earned money at the box office or in rentals or in cable subscriptions is that we want to be entertained. This movie does just that and was in no way the predictable teen farce that Hollywood usually cranks out. 7/10

i don't know why some people love to watch these kind of sad and depressing movies but i respect their opinions...it doesn't mean that i don't like movies which make me cry...i love many of them..they are mostly touching...but Revolutionary Road is a very hopeless and sad movie...the thing is it works for me only in parts...like the ending where the old man reduces the volume to minimum while his wife kept saying awful things about the Wheelers and a few more...DiCaprio,my favorite,as usual gives a mind blowing performance...Kate winslet was also good but i didn't like her character very much...she was kind of a very nagging wife and after the cancellation of their trip she was kind of losing it and becoming more insane...and that was really annoying...i can watch titanic as many times i can but watching revolutionary road again will be quite a task.

I actually quite enjoyed this movie. I haven't seen it in a few years, but in high school I could watch it over and over because I kinda liked the glorified depiction of the hacker character. Yeah its not realistic, looks cheap, and many of the technical details were wrong, but who cares - it was a lot of fun. Now I'll admit that I found it much more engaging than normal people because I'm quite a geek but I like to do it big and I identify with the kind of characters in the film. I also liked to see an image of hackers as more social and not without "style" which was a breath of fresh air from the greasy nerd stereotype. In fact some of the smartest geeks are some of the most hip trend-setters in cultures in almost every country. I REALLY want to find some venues resembling the hacker hangouts and arcades in the movie. My paradise.

The biggest mistake this trilogy made was to meld the comic book craziness with real life logic in the hope of making a gritty, realistic Batman. News Flash: The comic Batman is totally and utterly unrealistic. You either create a decent comic film, or you take only elements that can generally work in the real world. This trilogy tried to create some kind of hybrid and, because of that, it falls flat on its face. But even the parts that should be believable regardless are done badly - like the police force. In order to make the joker a super- villain, Nolan made everyone else a super-moron. LAZY WRITING

Am I the only person who did not enjoy this film?? Salma Hayek does a fine job considering her character was shallowly written and not moving in the slightest. The only believable character in the whole movie was Edward Norton who was actually on screen for maybe 3 minutes. I found myself checking my watch hoping for it to be over. However great the story is, the movie completely screwed it up. The only thing I kept thinking was how incredibly strange the script was and wondering when it was over. I think that this story could have been done in so many ways that would have been moving and emotional. Instead you just keep thinking 'what a nut! is this over yet?' Not a movie that I would ever willingly see again. In my opinion a 3 is much too generous a rating, and this critique is far too nice.

This movie was never as great and awesome as people had hoped it to be but simple fact is that this is some quality entertainment nevertheless.This is the first spin-off movie from the popular X-Men movie series, with Wolverine in the lead. It at the same time is also a prequel to all of the X-men movies. Wolverine has always been one of the most popular and rich characters, not only in the movie but also with the comic book fans and those who watched one of the many cartoons based on the X-Men on TV. So it's no big surprise really that Wolverine was the first of the X-Men to get a movie of his own.It's also the movie role that Hugh Jackman seems to be born for. It's the perfect part for him and was also the character that launched him to stardom with the first X-Men movie of 2000. No wonder that he was eager to jump on to this project and even became a producer himself for it.Expectations were always quite high for this movie but those expectations got never really met for anyone. It was an highly anticipated movie because it featured the popular character of Wolverine and promised to feature plenty of action in it.The movie never really becomes as great as you would had hoped. Reason for this is that the story feels quite rushed and messy. The story really seems like an excuse to let Wolverine battle as many different mutants as possible, without letting those moments ever make sense for the story. It's pretty pointless all how this movie its story is often progressing and doesn't really seem to go anywhere in terms of telling something new. I mean, this is an origins story but we pretty much knew already how Wolverine came to be Wolverine in "X2".So all of the actions seems pretty random and pointless for the story, it still keeps the movie going and is what makes it still interesting and entertaining to watch. It's a big budget movie and that shows with its action moments. There are plenty of effects here that most of the time are pretty good looking.By no means a great movie but there is basically no way that you'll not enjoy watching it.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A young boy named Luke who has recently lost his parents, while traveling with his grandmother Helga (Mai Zetterling) they stumble across a convention of witches at a seaside resort in England. The witches masquerading as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are in fact launching a plan to turn all the children in England into mice. Apparently witches simply don't like the smell of children. It seems the Helga is somewhat acquainted with witches and the danger they pose. Unfortunately though when Luke attempts to spy upon them, he is caught and switched into a mouse while still retaining his mental faculties. It's now up to Helga and her grandson (now in mouse form) to stop this fate from befalling other children.This is another good family film based on the works of Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda) which should appeal to both adults and children, though it might be somewhat frightening to younger children.The wonderful cast includes a frightening Angelica Huston as the head witch as well as Jane Horrocks, Rowan Atkinson and Brenda Blethyn.This would be the only real family or children's film by Nicholas Roeg, a Director with considerable visual skills.This was the last film in which Jim Henson was personally involved before his untimely death. In addition to the contributions of his Creature Shop he served as a producer.Apparently both of the directors Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuarón have expressed interest in filming there own version of the book.

I have seen the trailers and TV commercials for this movie. It looked different and I thought the stars in the film were decent. I love Terry Zwigoff's last two great films Ghost World & Crumb. I wanted to see John Ritter in his final role and I wanted laughs from the talented funny Bernie Mac. Unfortunately, I didn't get anything I wanted from this film. It just turned out to be another movie that proves that Hollywood keeps creating movies for the dumbing down of America and the fact that people laugh at anything.The movie starts off with Willie (Billy Bob Thornton) who is posing as Santa and his little friend Marcus (Tony Cox) who is posing as an elf. They are just finishing up their job at the mall, the day before Christmas. The mall is closing and then we see Marcus hiding in a snowman costume in the mall when it closes. He then lets Willie in the store and they go to rob the mall. They do this and have done this for many years before. They rob a mall and then disappear for a year and then go to another mall. That's what Willie and Marcus do for a living. They pretend they are a Santa and Elf combo and then rob the mall when Christmas comes. That's basically the storyline of the movie. Willie happens to be an alcoholic and can't stop drinking. It supposed to be funny that he's an alcoholic and does nothing but drink and curse throughout the film. Santa curses at the kids and comes into work drunk but no one ever seems to notice. This movie is so stupid on so many levels and I can't believe it actually got made. Mafia movie like cursing, plot holes and wasted performances ensues.The acting, well what can I say about the acting besides it was bad. I mean Billy Bob Thornton playing an alcoholic mall Santa, who would have thought he could do that? I mean wow it takes a lot of talent to play an alcoholic and curse throughout the movie. And Tony Cox another great addition to the movie actor hall of fame. The late great John Ritter, who was extremely wasted in the film and had a look on his face throughout the movie, which seemed to pose the question `Why, am I here?' John Ritter acted along side Billy Bob Thornton in a movie called Sling Blade, which was brilliant. I guess the last movie ever made curse continues because I remember a lot of good actors and actresses whose last movies were horrible. An example of this includes Chris Farley in Almost Heroes, John Candy in Wagon's East, and Aaliyah in Queen of the Damned. Well to continue on about the acting, there is Bernie Mac again who is also wasted. The guy is funny! Why can't they give him good lines, why do they always put him in these lousy 10-minute roles that serve no purpose? Why? The Kid (he didn't even have a name) played by Brett Kelly was really annoying and very stupid. To be honest, the film wasted all its talent.The script and dialog, which now I am not surprised by, stunk because John Requa and Glenn Ficarra wrote it and the last film they wrote was Cats & Dogs which was a horrible movie but not nearly as bad as this. The movie's dialog is along the lines of something we would see in a movie like Scarface, Goodfellas, or the Godfather. The movie uses the f-word over and over throughout the movie, it feels as though every other word in this movie is the f-word and there is absolutely no point for its use. The dialog is so lousy and brings nothing original to the big screen. They think because they use a lot of bad language that it will make the movie funnier which it doesn't it only makes it worse since there is no need for it and the performances are average if not poor all around.The director Terry Zwigoff has suffered from the Hollywood curse. He made two terrific Independent movies before this, Ghost World and Crumb, which in all honesty are brilliant and original. In fact, Ghost World is one of the best movies I have ever seen and is a personal favorite. When I walked out of the theater and realized that he directed this piece of garbage I just shook my head and thought damn you Hollywood for taking such a great director and paying him money to make this crap. The good news is that Terry Zwigoff is going back to the Independent films after this crap and making a movie called Art School Confidential which is another underground comic book from the writers of Ghost World so I am looking forward to that and I am glad he didn't let Hollywood drag him in fully and take all his talent away. I am hoping he just made this film to help fund the Art School Confidential movie and to take advantage of Hollywood and prove to them that the Independent Films are where the good stuff is.So in conclusion, a movie that is supposed to offend, make people laugh and provide an original storyline does nothing it promises. It is a huge waste of talent from both its actors and director. The film's trailer is more amusing then the movie. If you watch the trailer you seen enough and don't need to see the movie. This movie proves that crap can be made and people will see it. There is nothing funny about the movie. I love comedies but this is not funny. I cannot recommend this film to anyone because it is literally one of the most painful movies to sit through. It only runs 93 minutes but seems like it runs for 3 hours that's how bad this film is. Warn your friends, warn your family, warn anyone you can because Bad Santa is an awful movie and one of the years worst films. My final rating is a 1/10.

If people base their overall opinion on The Crow based on either of its' sequels, they will miss how good The Crow starring Brandon Lee is. City of Angels was a shameful attempt by some writers and producers to capitalize on the original and the stigma attached to the film created through Brandon Lee's tragic on-set death.The Crow should have been Lee's 'breakout' film. His role as Eric Draven should have stood out for the effort Lee put into that, rather than the tragic circumstances inexorably tied to it.The Crow has some endearing qualities, and leaves some lasting impressions and images firmly implanted in memory. From the intentionally dark and dreary settings of Detroit to the soundtrack, The Crow stands on its' own as a truly great - and greatly under-appreciated - film. The story distinguishes itself in such a way, that even some unoriginality is forgiven. What I mean by that is, the revenge theme in movies was nothing new or unique. Avenging a loved one has been done several times and in several different ways. Sometimes this mechanic works, sometimes it doesn't. In The Crow, it works. In other words; some elements in the movie, though unoriginal, are still conveyed in original and intriguing ways.The Crow is original and inspired work. That's the bottomline.Brandon's role wasn't necessarily 'Oscar-worthy'..But, it was believable and presented with emotion and authority. He commanded that role, and the scenes he was in(which is most of them). He was (and is) Eric Draven. One can only guess where this role would have taken Brandon Lee had he lived. My guess is to bigger and better things...come to think of it, maybe that's where he ended up? Depending on what you believe... If you haven't seen this movie, I'd recommend at least renting it. I own the Collectors' Series DVD, and it is permanently part of my collection.Last note: Really a crying shame City of Angels was ever made, and especially given the fact it involves some of the same people from the original. They seem to thoroughly undo every bit of good they did with The Crow. Please, do yourself a favor; pass the sequels by. There is only one The Crow.

Jay Baruchel has just arrived in LA, a city he is not too fond of, and is staying with his best friend, Seth Rogan. Seth is determined to make Jay's stay in LA a good one and everything goes as planned until Seth drags Jay to James Franco's house-warming party.This Is The End is one big inside joke where the funniest comedic actors working today jump in front of the screen all too willing to make fun of themselves. Between a cameo by Michael Cera and Danny McBride, it's the villains that steal the show. No matter how horrifying the events escalate outside, even when demonic figures rise from hell through a pit in James Franco's front yard, nothing is as frightening as having to be isolated with Danny McBride. Or even Jonah Hill.Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg have never really written anything more than bromance comedies that all follow the same plot points, thus all playing out as the same film just with different settings and characters. Dudes who already know each other become best friends after an adventure but not before fighting, getting all dramatic and making up with heavy homosexual undertones. With This Is The End, they prove not only to be capable directors but also better writers than they have lead us to believe through their past work. Though this one follows the same formula, it works better than ever before and the rest is non-stop laughs.What's truly an achievement is that This Is The End works as a hilarious stoner comedy, an inside joke that allows the average viewer in on what they're making fun of and an excellent apocalyptic nightmare put to film. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

This is a powerful and beautiful story, it was actually the first movie to make me cry as a kid. Not to mention it is also very fun and can be light and has a great comical aspect as well. You really do fall in love with the characters and their stories. The music composition is also awesome. They have a lot of great fun songs that are catchy and get stuck in your head even years later trust me. Elton John also composed some awesome original music for the film so it also has a romantic and love context within the film as well. It is a great film to say the least and the story is very powerful making it a must watch for kids and adults.

The Fantastic Four will win no awards. It has a lot of flaws which include too little action and an ending that was over much too quickly. Jessica Alba, though very attractive, does not act well in this film, but the other three, especially Chiklis and Evans, do well enough.In the script, Tim story captured a lot of what made the comic so charming. One thing was the way the four always fought among each other, almost as much as they fought their enemies. He also went for comedy more so then sincerity, and it works for the most part. If marvel fans remember the comic, they will notice these scenes and get a chuckle out of them. The Human Torch was always a prankster, and he always teased the Thing. They were the two that fought one another most of the time as well, and you will see that clearly with this film.A lot of people who have given this movie bad reviews probably never read the comic. I just can't understand all the hate that this movie is getting even though it is much better than War of The Worlds, a film that many people seemed to like, but I found to be rather dull and boring. True the special effects could've been better, but Tim Story did not have the budget that Steven Spielberg was given, so I can forgive him that.Overall I would say that Fantastic Four should've been a little more serious than it was. There were entirely too many jokes and not enough science that could've made it better. I didn't quite accept how they changed Doom's origins from the comic, but it didn't bother me too much. Fantastic Four, to me, was just light hearted fun, and it is not on the same par as Spiderman 2, Superman 1 and 2, or X-men 2. However, it was a whole lot better than The Hulk and Daredevil, and in my opinion better than the first X-men movie.

The plot: This movie, starring beautiful, naive Piper Perabo as struggling songwriter in NYC, is a wonderful insight into the music and entertainment industry in NYC. Violet has always dreamt about making it in New York. Finally she kisses her rural North Amboy, NJ (and her dad, John Goodman) goodbye and leaves to find fame and fortune as a songwriter in New York. The usual cliches follow: unanswered demo tapes, the burglary in her flat, the daily struggle for survival. Things turn better when she is tried as a new Coyote: a barmaid in the underground bar Coyote Ugly (because "Cheers has already been taken"). First she is everything a young girl from the countryside is supposed to be: naive, clumsy, bashful - a contrast to the in-your-face attitude of the other barmaids. After a long and weary fight behind, in front of and on the bar, she is accepted as a Coyote, even putting her boyfriend and some open mic night chances aside. This phase of giving up her dreams for the easy money is really saddening. Finally her dad, boyfriend and girlfriend intervene out of different reasons and get her on her first open mic night, where she is once again confronted with her stagefright, but is overcoming it (for sure we need a happy ending here).The conclusion: an open-hearted, sometimes amusing, sometimes melancholic display of a young woman, her dreams and fears. Peppered by some hot bar scenes (well there has to be something for the guys) and some real hot music (can't wait to lay hands on the soundtrack) this is a wonderful movie. (Don't ask me whether LeAnn Rimes is doing a cameo for the former or latter reason). And - doesn't Piper Perabo sometimes look like Alanis Morrisette (or for the older generation: like a young, up-and-coming Carole King) ??

This movie seemed to have a lot of promise. I loved No Country for Old Men, and was looking forward to a movie with the same level of craftsmanship. What I got was a poorly acted hour and a half of hope-crushing, nerve-wracking discomfort. From the very beginning the movie is irritating, in no small part due to John Malkovich playing another creepy weirdo with nothing redeeming to say or do. Essentially, everyone is sleeping with everyone without any of the hi-jinx that would have broken the atmosphere of quiet unpleasantness that leads up to the unforgivable conclusion. This movie seems to have the theme "All nice people get killed and all the bad people get to live". There were only two good characters in the movie, and both of them die in gruesome fashion that would make an avid Robot Chicken watcher flinch. Brad Pitt was almost adorable as a vaguely gay gym employee whose "good Samaritan" plan is perverted by his insecure friend who spends the whole movie complaining about her appearance. Her machinations end up dooming him, as well as the only other decent character; Richard Jenkins' "Ted". Ted is her boss who is in love with her and discouraging her from getting her plastic surgery. They both die for her mistakes and she gets to have her surgery. The characters were intended to come off as quirky and bumbling, but they just read as boring. Also, for the first few minutes I thought John Malkovich was doubling roles as both Ozzy and Linda. Some of the gags and scenarios were mildly funny, but the movie as a whole dragged on and left me with a bad taste in my mouth. If you're an apathetic, antisocial, self-described intellectual teenager, this movie may appeal to you. If you are a decent person it will likely fall flat. Shock value at being made intimately aware of the contents (physical) of Brad Pitt's head does not make a good movie. Also, my summary of Clooney's role was that I almost forgot to mention it here. He was there the whole time, but he was mostly a foil. Maybe my expectations were too high, but from now on I will trust no reviews but my own.

"The Friendly Ghost" has arrived on the big screen! But why? Well I guess the answer to that question is an easy one to find. Basically "Casper" has just joined the mass procession of cartoon characters who have found their way to the silver screen. None of our beloved heroes of TV. and comic strips seem safe from what now appears to be an obligatory transformation. After "Superman" made a killing at the box office in 1978, it's been an ever increasing trend that has reached a peak in recent years with movie producers scrambling to secure the film rights to the few remaining animated stars.Of course for those that have made the transition, such as "Batman", "The Flinstones" and "The Jetsons", it has not only been financially rewarding, but has also benefited several directors, actors and even a few audiences. This particular movie is another one of those feebly plotted vehicles that attempts to just dazzle us visually, and this it achieves very successfully.Special effects are a sensationally flashy display from Industrial Light and Magic, creating the spooks, and the havoc they cause, with startling effect. As in "Roger Rabbit", this flick has interaction between animated creations and real people taking place, and most convincingly too! While the cartoonists have a ball, actors Bill Pullman, Christina Ricci, Cathy Moriarty and Eric Idle (as well as support) very commendably play out their parts. Pullman has fun with his unusually comic, slapstick role, as Dr James Harvey, spiritual psychologist. As his daughter Kat, Ricci easily adopts the role of the lonely teen moppet who yearns for a place to call home and some companionship (which our friendly ghost would be more than happy to give her). Cathy Moriarty makes a fine villainess as Carrigan Crittenden, and Eric Idle is her bumbling sidekick, Dibs.Director Brad Silberling brings all the action and mayhem together quite deftly, only being at fault perhaps for trying to inject an emotional element into "Casper" (all he produces is sappiness). Fortunately it is comedy that this picture stands upon, and at times it is indeed hilarious. Look out for some special cameos from some of our very favourite film stars. "Casper" is quite acceptable as a kids flick also, never being gross or excessive, and perhaps only the mild expletives may be found offensive.Final word goes to the art direction and set decoration teams, led by production designer Leslie Dilley, who have fashioned some brilliant scenery for us to feast our eyes upon. The outrageous Whipstaff Manor is certainly a sight to behold. James Horner has provided the score.Friday, August 4, 1995 - Waverley Pinewood Cinema

With a shocking and dramatic opening, this film grabs hold of you within 10 seconds and doesn't let go until the very end.JJ Abrams (the man who has written over 70 episodes of the hugely popular TV series LOST) is integral to the creation of this film, both directing and writing, and it shows. The film is extremely high-paced and unpredictable from the very beginning and its 120min running time is not at all overcooked. The many fans of LOST will love this film and those who simply enjoy high-paced explosive action will find it equally brilliant. That is not to say it is simply constant action with no intelligent plot (die hard 4 anyone?), the plot is intriguing and the script is tight throughout. The two lead roles are also performed superbly by both Cruise and the unexpected but brilliant casting of Hoffman, who's character is unpredictable with a dangerous edge.Whilst the shocking beginning hooks viewers and the high-paced and unpredictable nature of every action scene provides a real thrill-ride, the film also has a real dramatic edge - 10/10(i would suggest that those who dislike the film due to a love for the original TV series or the franchise just view this as a separate movie!)

"Women would rule the world if they didn't hate each other" - Chris RockThe truth hurts sometimes however it has to be told. Mean Girls is a movie in which depicted as girls who will go to any length to get what they want. This indeed is true. This is shown primarily in a girl's teenage years. At this time a girl will hate another for the simple reason that she may have the boy she likes or the better clothes. This movie displays through the amusing plot lines that Tina Fey has created.From a novel which had no story line just the facts of from a parental point of view, the talented and sometimes unrecognized actress/writer Tina Fey has established a great story and surprisingly may give young girls the understanding that being popular isn't everything.This movie is not one to disappoint with it's very talented cast including Rachel McAdams who many will now know for her role in "The Notebook" and many of the ex Saturday Night Live cast and some present. This movie however, does not fall into the category of yet another Saturday Night Live movie....This movie however is not a simple teenage movie with it's simple love story and simple problems along the way this story has many sub-texts in which can relate to children and adults. This work is something that Tina Fey should be recognized for more of. She has not only shown the beauty of comedy but the truth about Mean Girls...

In My view of this movie, I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed the overall nature of the film from start to finish. *PLEASE NOTE* STAY FOR ENTIRE FILM, WHEN CREDITS COME ON, DO NOT LEAVE, THEY SHOW WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM ON THE ADVENTURE ON THE ITEM* Don't want to tell the film away but stay until the credits start rolling.In the end, the film was realistic on some points in it and some it wasn't. The film has a view scenes that would make you jump out of your seat and some that were predicted but the film overall, had action, killing and was a great flick. For such a low Budget film at 28 mil, they made a great film (strike) did. It is a must see!! I also heard it ranked in 40 mil + and only cost 28 mil to make, means to me, that alot of people are going to see it and you should to!!

What a cracking film this is to watch it had my guessing like all the rest whats in the box? The highlights is the car chase's great use of shots to really get you holding on to the edge of the sitting thinking this is going to hurt and yeap you be right...och.The two main charactors work well together would be interesting to see a Sequel to this film after all it was left open. But believe me the title has nothing at all to do with the film. This is one of those sleeping giants that didn't get much hype but for once it should of done I really enjoyed this film and if like me like your action fast, and has a plot (something lacking these days) then see this film

Oh, man. I can not believe how bad this movie was. When I was 12, my parents made me sit down and watch this film. And told me it was very very good. The only thing I found amusing was Will Smith. It's 7 years later, I'm 18 now, so I'm in a film class in college. And my teacher said to try to watch it again. And I thought he was right, that I was forced to watch it. So, I sat down again and watched it willfully. And I still didn't like it. Take away the fancy effects and like the Matrix, what do you have? An average action movie. I don't think any movie could be as bad as The Matrix, but this came pretty close.1/10

As I sat watching this movie, I had a hard time figuring out what was wrong. Will Smith was on the mark, Kevin Kline was on the mark, the story was pretty good, and the visuals were stunning. Granted, Salma Hayek pretty much ruined every scene in which she opened her mouth, and we could have had a little more interactions with Lovelace's lovely minions, but, despite some flaws in the script, I knew I should be enjoying myself more. It was during a transition scene that I realized what the problem was. "Wild Wild West" has perhaps the most uninspiring soundtrack I have heard in a long time. Instead of enhancing the movie, it was dragging it down.For example, the opening credit visuals are similar to those of the television show. One would think that the main theme would contain some kind of tribute, as well, but I could never pick it out, hard as I tried. The only time I heard the original music appear is late in the movie during one scene. It would be one thing if the TV music wasn't memorable, but it was, and it should have served as a basis for the movie music. I know that Elmer Bernstein is a great composer, but he did this movie a disservice.

this movie fire fr fr dead-a s s. its rely good like its rely good this shot go HARD as a mother f u c k e r. this like one of my favorite movie Tarantino a legend Burr Burr this s h i t hard AF. i like this movie a lot and its rely good. my favorite part is the entire movie (s hi t goes hard dead- a s s for real for real fr fr) fire as s h i t for real. damn good movie.

"Saw," a film that was originally planned for a straight-to-video release but after receiving positive nods at test screenings, was finally given the green light in October 2004 - just in time for Halloween. "Saw" contains one of the those plots that shows you everything it's got up its sleeve, then doubles-back on itself three-fourths of the way through and reveals something entirely new.It's not hard to see why this almost hit the straight-to-video fodder list. I mean, people will closely observe that it obviously contains the traits of its successors, namely "Seven" (1995), and that may be all the ammunition the haters will need to trash it. Already, I see that the IMDb voters have averaged "Saw" a 7.5, with those people who have rated it with an "8" or a "10" being neck-and-neck at the polls.But I begin with reassurances that "Saw" is a genius thriller, if not entirely original or daring. The film does its best to exploit the claustrophobia and mounting tension that collects as it progresses. "Saw" will also make you think twice about bladed objects as well.Ironically, the title has very little to do with plot, as there is no chainsaw-wielding maniac on the loose as the ghastly cover art of a severed foot would imply. The only saws here are the ones the two main characters Lawrence (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell, also the film' screenwriter) have been given.The two men awaken to find themselves chained to lead pipes in a decrepit public bathroom. In the middle of the floor, is a dead body that's surrounded in a pool of its own blood, with a gun in one hand and a tape recorder in the other. As it would turn out, they're the latest victims of a serial killer known as the "Jigsaw Killer."Jigsaw has a nasty little way of torturing his victims by trapping them in a situation where they have to kill if they want to survive. As Lawrence explains, technically Jigsaw is not a killer, simply because he hasn't killed anyone; the victims do that for him. As one fortunate victim observes, who survived her ordeal, she is bound to a chair with a reversed bear trap-like device strapped to her head with pliers wired into her upper and lower jaws. A timer is on the device and if she does not locate a key before it runs out, her mouth will be ripped open and no more pretty face. In order to get out, she must open up the stomach of a dead man lying on the floor next her to get the key.As Jigsaw ever so carefully points out to his victims, he doesn't just choose them at random. To him, they're all perfectly immoral individuals and he uses their immorality to set up horrific situations where the victim rarely survives the trap; in essence, life is its own reward because Jigsaw's victims don't value it, as he explains to the one young woman lucky enough to fight through his plan. Also on the case of Jigsaw, are two detectives Tapp (Danny Glover) and Sing (Ken Leung), who bring forth the news of Jigsaw's previous victims in one particularly gruesome flashback sequence.Lawrence is pretty well aware of the case of Jigsaw, as even once he was considered a suspect by the police. As you would have it, Adam is not especially trustful of Lawrence being that he seems to know a lot and is not reporting many details to him. They realize, however, that if they are going to survive this nightmare, they're going to have to play into Jigsaw's game, observe the clues he's willing to give them, and ultimately make it out alive."Saw" was directed admirably by James Wan and written by Whannell, who also makes an effective victim alongside Elwes. Elwes, a highly underrated actor, is given a chance to shine here, even though this really isn't an actor's movie, as it is more in the hands of the director. However, we do get a sense of the desperation of the two leads, who soon realize that they're not the only ones trapped in this madman's game."Saw" does benefit from its moody atmosphere, which may cover up any of the film's shortcomings. Towards the end, it does lose pace a little bit as things seem to be spiraling down the haunted house route, but quickly regains momentum as it draws to a close. I know that despite its flaws, I was glued to the seat and really "in" the film's tight tension, which thankfully doesn't let up.Is "Saw" a genre classic? Certainly. Is it a classic like "Seven"? I don't know. There's a lot to consider when pondering a question with so much baggage like that one. I liked it, but I'm not so sure about the news that a sequel is in the works. This seems a lot like a stand-alone-type movie, that of which doesn't need to get bogged down by the weight of unnecessary sequels.8/10

Like Guardians of the Galaxy and the two Avengers movies before it, Deadpool shows a worrying amount of smugness, its own self-amusement only equalled by its disregard for the intelligence of the audience. There's not a single one of the "instant reverse" jokes in The Avengers that even a very credulous small child wouldn't see coming, and Deadpool's scatological humour aims for little higher than the lowest (or broadest) common denominator. It's a crowdpleaser, and not awful, but if fart jokes, genital punching and a plot that resembles a 15-year-old's masturbation fantasies aren't your thing, you may find it all a little wearying. The gags are predictable and relentless... which, in fairness, is kind of the point for "the merc with the mouth", but doesn't make it any less tiresome. In an age where scarcely any film lacks postmodernism, Deadpool's constant fourth wall breaks seem almost passé. While a reasonable conceit in and of itself, there's nothing particularly intelligent done with it, the fourth wall just used as another vessel for some masturbation gags.The best jokes in the film - Deadpool frequently commenting on why A-List X-Men don't appear - lose lustre when you realise it's made by Fox and so they could well have. Current voting on the IMDb sees it just inside the top 50 all-time greatest films, comfortably edging out Citizen Kane, M, Rashomon and Taxi Driver.Plot-wise, then a thug also being the brains behind the bad guy's operation lacks credulity, though this is a film where Stan Lee urges prostitution, so all bets are very much off.

The Force Awakens is the Seventh Star Wars film directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, and Harrison Ford. The film was mass distributed by the Disney Corporation and produced by Lucasfilm, being labeled as a Sci-Fi Action Adventure. I actually own the film and would be glad to document my opinions and observations just for you. The Force Awakens is set a full generation after the events in Return of the Jedi. Rey (Daisy Ridley) is a lonely scavenger selling for scraps for a living on Jakku. On the other side of powers, Finn (John Boyega) is a storm-trooper looking to escape from the First Order with the help of Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac). Their fates coerce and try to take on the First Order run by Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). Characters in The Force Awakens are mostly good ones. You can call Rey a "Mary Sue", but Daisy's performance really makes up for what could be an underwritten character. The movie has a lot of characters and is a lot of fun but they don't balance out easily. Some like Captain Phasma look interesting, but she does next to nothing in terms of plot and character development. But overall, most of the performances are great and give the film a lot of levity, unlike *Cough* Rogue One *Cough*.There was a lot I liked here. There is a lot of grand set pieces that really give the film huge scale. Even the visual effects by ILM looked amazing as well. And overall, The Force Awakens is a huge amount of fun. The plot is a rehash of A New Hope, but as they say "If it isn't broke, don't fix it", even if there are elements of Empire thrown in. Themes of The Force Awakens include Family, Fate, and Coincidence. Since Rey has the Force, it is only known that she should discover the full extent of her powers, which is implied at the end. Family plays a big role in the Star Wars universe. And this trend continues with Han and Leia's son being the leader of The First Order.This film has reached more than a seventh of the world. It has most certainly found its audiences. General audiences would like this film. Star Wars fans certainly would. Depending on how you see the plot, it could go any way.

The director couldn't even have the character's names pronounced correctly. It's not as if there is a television show, that if he bothered to watch it, he would then know how to pronounce them. The graphics suck. The script is so bent it barely follows the show. (How is it that an original writer from the series didn't write the script?) The acting in the show is so overdone and over acted it reminds me of the old Conan the Barbarian movies (only not as good). And finally the characters have lost all qualities from the television show that make them endearing. If I had doubts about M. Knight before, they are totally confirmed now. I will never pay or spend my free time on one of his movies again.

Absolutely the worst movie ever created. I fell asleep multiple times and each time I woke up, I knew exactly what was happening, which just shows the extent of the mindless plot. As a video editor, the graphics in this movie were embarrassing. At one point, I am certain there was still green screen left in the shot. I should have attempted to get my money back when I heard the main characters accent in the first scene. I have never read the books the movie was based off of, but anyone aiming to see even a decent movie, should avoid Beautiful Creatures. It is sad when you leave a movie not being able to compliment even the costuming.

Tarantino leapt onto the scene with a masterful debut. Each successive film in the 90s was a little less interesting, with Jackie Brown being a fair drop in quality, Kill Bill being mostly awful, and Death Proof being nothing more than empty fun. It would seem that he has been, perhaps, accused of racism or other bigotry, and he bends over backwards to prove this is not the case by taking on the easiest targets in history: the Nazis. As is becoming usual, the film is overly long and almost completely unengaging. The sets, direction, acting and most technical details are superb, yet the script for this ludicrously half-baked idea is simply not up to the standards he set with his first two films. The film was a chore for me and managed mostly to bore me. His next two films would be the return to form that many thought this film was, but they were all wrong. It's just a slog and it makes no salient points about the world in which we live.

Now with some mysteries solved Thomas and his gang adjust to their new environment only to find out they have been tricked again.It takes only a few minutes for Thomas to figure out something is really wrong and from that point he rolls from one event to another. Where in the original the location for the most part was fixed and constrained now we get to see a glimpse of the real world out there and it is not pretty. Part of the enjoyment is not knowing what comes next so I will not reveal too much. What I do want to mention is that more and more Thomas seems to be embracing his leader qualities and a lot of people gladly want to follow him. I personally love these kinds of things since it makes it interesting for me. Like in the original this film is filled with great action sequences and thrills. If you were thinking that it would be hard to top the original in that department think again. Maze Runner: Scorch Trials is bigger and better throughout. While the overall tone is still quite serious more humour is added to the mix providing some welcome laughs. However some of the quieter moments do feel a little forced and I wished they would have made better use of them to deepen the characters a little more. Not that it is needed much since you do learn enough about them to know where they stand. The ending of this film sets up the third one quite nicely and again it makes me look forward to what it has to offer.One remark I have to add. I read some reviews where book fans are outraged. Apparently the films don't follow the books as they should have. Now I understand that this can be very infuriating and frustrating. But as someone who has not read the books I have found myself enjoying these films since whether they are poor adaptations or not they are incredible enjoyable movies in their own right. Well made blockbuster action adventure films like these are very rare these days so I will embrace them wholeheartedly if they come along. Trust me on this if such a movie is crap then I will be among the first to critique the hell out of them.But main point is that Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials like the original is immensely fun. And that ladies and gentlemen is important too. A must watch!

Taking baby steps on my fourth decade of life I'm no longer a comic kid or comic adaptation fun - yeah, Sin City has it's moments, two latest Batman titles are OK in whole (with some drawbacks - and some sparks like Ledger, God rest his soul), but none of these films got at least 4 out of 5 on my scale.Beautifully mastered by director and camera-men, it shines. Robert Downey Jr. and Ms. Paltrow are so much in place and their acting (with a lot of humorous touches) is great. Jeff Bridges looks cool despite shaved head and pepper'n'salt beard. And all in all, it's a bright story which you can safely let your kid watch, not worrying about excess of violence pouring from the screen. This movie, somehow, is not about action for me - it's like, as I said, raw fun.Definitely recommended even if you got your degree already.

Alright. Let me first breath deeply! OK, here we go. I just watched Exodus by Ridley Scott and I must say that I am completely disappointed with the adaptation. If you are a God believer and you really want to see the film just because you have read the story in the Bible and have seen The Prince of Egypt by Dreamworks and, want to be surprised and feel proud of this generation's adaptation, well get ready to be pretty disappointed! The movie script was awful. Miriam became an awful Hebrew who denied her nationality twice! She did not even joined the Exodus! AOL. I was really looking forward to see the conversation of Moses with God in Mt. Sinai and I was shocked to watch Moses getting hit by an avalanche of boulders and mud! Then there was this boy who is definitely not God at all to me! AOL and the burning bush behind the boy..silent..no whispers..no whooshing silver flames wrapping Moses or whatsoever..just there acted like some sort of a lamp to shed some light while Moses' body was buried in mud in exception of his face..ha ha, what a great and very inconvenient way to talk with quote God end quote. When he was back to his tent, the script made the story worse when Moses' wife says he's just being delusional about God as a boy. Next, when it came to the plagues part, it was no match compare to the Prince of Egypt which by the way, a "cartoon" version. I wasn't moved at all and I even felt sleepy which never happened to me before inside a movie theater! OK, so let's get on to the parting of the Red sea part...Moses, wasn't granted the staff of God because it was pretty obvious in the movie, that there is no God, and its just yourself and you look crazy when other people see you talking to yourself. Yeah, so Moses hurled his sword to the sea and it was just a coincidence that it stood straight on the sea bed and it became a sea level indicator. When Moses woke up, he saw the sword and realized that it was a very low-tide and they crossed the sea..without the chasing of the Egyptian soldiers and the panic..well there was panic but it was a little late panic. Come on, every one wanted to see how this generation's parting of the Red sea will beat the vintage and the cartoon versions! Lastly, I think it was really poor to see Moses chiseling the ten commandments on chunks of cold tablets and not with the hands of God. Seriously, the makers of this movie, didn't create any of the scenes where God in the Bible showcased His great glorious power. I read somewhere that R. Scott is also working on a movie called The Son of God.. in an atheistic view. Let's see how Jesus would perform miracles in the movie..on stage with a couple of Mary Magdalenes... oh Gee... I rate this film: 4/10 and the points goes to the costumes and the CGI effects.

The stories of great people, particularly the great thinkers, have been source material for a number of acclaimed and awarded biopics, a sub-genre that has evolved a lot in the last decade. You can tell just by comparing two of 2014's best, each focused on one of the greatest British minds of the 20th century. There's "The Imitation Game," the suspenseful, "critical moment in the life of" take on the life of mathematician and computer grandfather Alan Turing, and then "The Theory of Everything," an emotional romance taking the "snippets in the chronological life of" approach to theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.Taken from Jane Hawking's memoir, it makes sense why "The Theory of Everything" tells us more about her and Stephen's relationship than it does about Stephen's work. For those interested more in the science of Stephen's life and work, it's a film that will disappoint on some level; director James Marsh and writer Anthony McCarten are far more interested in the philosophy and ideology that influenced Stephen's way of thinking, and how Jane influenced him as well."The Theory of Everything" is also a chronicle of a crippling disease. We meet Stephen (Eddie Redmayne) at Cambridge, where he meets and falls in love with Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) and shortly thereafter learns he's suffering from ALS, a fatal disease. Stricken with depression, he tries to distance himself from Jane, but she insists on staying by his side. We slowly watch Stephen lose the ability to move parts of his body until he becomes wheelchair bound and can no longer speak. Yet miraculously the disease never claims his life, and never affects his mind, even if it does take a heavy toll on his family.Redmayne certainly deserves all the praise in the world for being able to honestly and authentically portray the evolving disabilities, but his performance is so much more than such surface-level awards-bait fodder. Redmayne's true accomplishment is how he lets Stephen's personality grow and shine through despite of the physical limitations. Through eye contact and facial expressions, he paints something special despite the clear restrictions of his brush. Stephen's spirit really shows, and it adds to what's already an emotional film.Yet Stephen is not the sole focal point of this movie. Jane is very much his equal, and in many ways, the film is really about her, a woman's struggle to be the caretaker she set out to be, what it is like to feed and clothe and literally care for an internationally famous person incapable of doing those basic things for himself. She is a complex character, both strong and weak, shoving aside expectations of how she should or shouldn't behave or think at every opportunity. A young-faced 30-year-old, Jones is trusted to convey age and maturity as the film goes on (the makeup doesn't really get the job done), and she does in a way most actresses her age simply have yet to demonstrate in their careers. Marsh and the film's casting director, Nina Gold, deserve a whopping commendation for trusting in such young talent to convey these people at such mature stages of their relationship. Most films would've gone with older veterans knowing they could get away with them playing Stephen and Jane in their 20s and that later in the film they would fit naturally. Instead, they got two lesser-known but rising stars who have long careers ahead of them and could still probably fill these roles 15 years from now."The Theory of Everything" only lacks in compelling drama. It's a portrait of two people and the ups and downs of their relationship, making it a much more indie take on the life of a famous person rather than the Hollywood prestige biopic route that won "A Beautiful Mind" the Best Picture Oscar. More concisely, it will move audiences far more than it will entertain them, which for the biographical genre, is actually refreshing.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more!

This movie was entertaining, as long as you forgot any preconceived (or remembered) notions about The Lone Ranger. This movie bore no resemblance to the Clayton Moore, Lone Ranger of my youth, and Johnny Depp was even less familiar as Tonto. It was, however, a fun movie & Depp, as always, was very good. Clearly, the writing and acting were better than the original TV show,but for those of us who have fond memories of the characters portrayed by Clayton Moore & Jay Silverheels, it was certainly a disappointment. As you can probably tell, I feel a lot of ambivalence about this movie, as I am torn between the new version and the nostalgia of the old version. For people my age, though, this is not the Lone Ranger.

Extremely disapointing. What made it worse was that with John Woo's trademark slow motion scenes we were forced to stare at the boring images on the screen for an even longer period of time. Woo needs to get back with Chow-Yun Fat and start making some more of his high energy "hong kong" style action flicks before he really sends his reputation down the drain.

-This is for those who have seen the film and didn't think it was the "Best movie ever" First of all, let me say that the director Frank Darabont is a terrific director and has made two of my top 100 all time favorite films... The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile.However, this was like watching Ken Griffy Jr. step up to the plate, swing and miss. I was extremely disappointed. I was told that this was scary and that the ending was one of the best endings EVER. I don't take that too lightly, especially when it's written on the cover of the DVD. I know it was a horror film, I know it wasn't supposed to be taken too literally, but come on... people don't behave the way they behaved in The Mist. Here are a few things that made me write this comment- 1. There's no way they would have let Marcia Gay Harden (who was one of the few good actors) have that kind of power over them. Whether she was a profit or not. And if she did have that power... surely she would have gotten the gun, or been aware that someone might try to shoot her if she held up our "protagonists" at knifepoint with her new posse (consisting of the town folk who had no business being in a posse) 2. The dialogue was tough to sit through. It just seemed forced and unrealistic.3. The characters were rough as well. With the exception of the two leads... they were mediocre actors who were following lines in a script. There was no depth to the characters and hardly any subtext. The subtext that was provided was pointless.. because the ending showed us that the whole movie was kind of pointless.4. The army guys. Hated them. Their characters sucked. Sorry Frank, but they sucked. What they just decide to hang themselves in the back room?? Are you kidding me? And for being military men, they sure were cowardly. And for being fresh out of boot camp... they sure knew an awful lot of information about this "mist." Were they military ingelligence? No they weren't. They were about to go on leave. They were fresh out of highschool kids.. and they knew the details of this secret military operation. And how do they deal with it? They hang themselves? Way to go. If the characters were smarter, or likable, or more significant, er.. believable... then maybe we would care when they die. The way it was, I found it hard to care about them because they seemed fake. The actors sucked too.4. The ending. OK, fine. I know it sounds good on paper... kill everyone. But really? Why not wait till the monster is right in front of you, or until you have no other option... or why not have a confrontation with the monster? Or how bout just end the movie by saying the line "there's 4 bullets left".. and not show it? The audience invested in these characters, then bam.. everybody's dead except for our hero and the viewer is left feeling like crap... not to mention- feeling like our hero was a total pus#y. It was really depressing, and not worth sitting through the whole spectacle of this ridiculous plot, to not have anything come out of it. - I understand wanting to do something different. And it was. It just didn't resonate at all with me. Stephen King didn't even write the ending that way. He stopped it after our hero says there's four bullets left. He left it up to the imagination. Did they make it or not? I don't know, it just seemed too easy to me to kill everyone. It was a cop-out.So, great director... just a sh#t#y movie. It happens. Steven Speilburg made AI, the Coen's made Intolerable Cruelty and Frank Darabont made The Mist. I hope he gets his groove back for Fahrenheit 451. That's all

I am a HUGE Superman fan! But there is so much alliteration I could toss out about this movie. Routh reprises Reeve. Singer salutes Salkind. Kate kopies Kidder. Sorry about that last one. The first 90 minutes are an homage to "Superman The Movie" and "Superman II" ... even some of the dialogue, and scene updates. Take it from someone who has seen both predecessor films at least 20 times each! This made for a somewhat boring movie, least for me, for the first hour and a half. The remaining 75 minutes or so, is somewhat original and moderately enjoyable. Routh does a remarkably uncanny personation of Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent, but his Superman is totally new and improved. As such, he seems genuinely bemused and bashful about all the attention he receives upon his unintentionally flamboyant return to Earth. Kate Bosworth is a pass as Lois Lane. She's no Margot Kidder, or even Noel Neill, who by the way, at age 86 has a small, but key speaking part. As does 76 year old Jack Larson, TV's Jimmy Olsen. I even thought I saw Marc McClure (Reeve's Jimmy Olsen) in a walk-on, through a revolving door scene. Who is the superb, young actor who play's Jason, Lois Lane's son? He's not listed in the IMDb credits? I'm not totally convinced he's really Clark's son though. Lots of people exhibit feats of extraordinary strength in times of crisis and fear, as he does here ... and only once. He also showed discernible no reaction to Luthor's kryptonite either. The best scene in the whole film is when, after the unnamed villain gives up on shooting Superman with the Vulcan 20 mm Gatling Gun, he then ... hmmm. I should leave some surprises for those who haven't seen it yet.

"Gangs of New York" is a great film, dominated by Scorsese's style and contains an in-your-face quality that few other films have. A huge influencing factor in this movie is the ability of Daniel Day-Lewis to make his character, Bill Cutting, one of the great villains - full of menace at every turn, yet intelligent, determined and strangely rational. Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting could have easily been a vaudevillian bad guy, moustache twirling and all, but Mr Day-Lewis gives him qualities that make him the true character center of this film.Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed is also worth mentioning. Tweed's political manipulations are entertaining to watch and provide an extra dimension to "Gangs...". Of the main actors, DiCaprio and Diaz are sufficient in what they do, but "Gangs..." suffers from their unneeded relationship scenes. The true focus of this film is the city of New York itself and its impact on those who lived in its boundries during its formation - Scorsese's love of NYC comes clearly across on the big screen, along with his willingness to look at the bad sections along with the good.Another reviewer compared the fight scenes in this movie to those from "LOTR: The Two Towers". I found I was much more involved in the brutal gang fights of "Gangs..." than I ever was in the massed battles of "LOTR:TTT". Those who have a low tolerance for violence may find "Gangs..." a bit graphic, but what did you expect from a Scorsese film?It should be said that "Gangs..." is more american folklore than american history. Certainly the major events in the film occurred, with many of the attitudes of the film reflecting the attitudes and lifestyle of the time, but "Gangs..." certainly isn't a history lesson. Even the book it draws so much material from is considered a suspect historical source, written by a journalist who recorded the exaggerations of urban tales. That said, it doesn't diminish "Gangs..." impact at all. Scorsese always loves doing things that are larger than life on the big screen and "Gangs..." is no different."Gangs..." major failing is it's ending. I felt a bit dismayed that such an epic film resorted to a fairly unsatisfactory conclusion that was almost completely separate to what had been driving the rest of the narrative. All in all, this is a small point - "Gangs of New York" is a powerful film that overcomes a few flaws in its portrayal of some great american folklore.

I'm extremely happy that Will has decided to a skip the action parts to return to what he does best, comedy! It would be easy to talk about a return to his Fresh Prince acting style, but that would be unfair since he is a much better actor now. Only one complaint though: this guy has such good self confidence that when he tries to play insecure we just don't believe him. However, he has loads of star quality and really lifts this film to new heights.Even without Will this had probably been a successful romcom, good support from Eva Mendes & especially Kevin James certainly contributed. I laughed out loud several times during this film and left the cinema with a huge smile on my face. That's why this one got a 10 from me!

The danish girl is a perfect example of a film that will change the lives of a lot of people. The story about a woman living in a mans body is beautifully focused on the storyline rather than shots that will draw you attention away. The acting is marvelous. The way the actors play with the difference between a man and a woman is extraordinary and with so much thought. The story itself is a beautiful getaway from daily life in which we have to live with prejudgment and some failing to understand we differ from one another. Don't get me wrong. Of course the story is a bit romanticized in the way that the big problem isn't the outside world, but rather the struggle within that drives the story. The screenwriter has done an amazing job by dialogue and detail to give the viewer a clear perspective of the story behind. It is the detail and the brilliant performance that made me feel for and with the characters. I want to ask you to sit down, be quiet and give yourself the focus to live the life of someone with such great power and strength.Be inspired, be free, be you!

Saw the first one as a child, saw the second one as an adult. Just so I don't spoil the magic, I will say only the following: Tim Allen was excellent as Santa... he made me feel like I was ten again. The character Bernard was just as bossy as I remembered from the first film, but the quips he fires off were in shorter supply. I missed the sarcastic humor I associate with him. Charlie is growing up, but in the best way possible. He had some touching lines near the end to a new character-- I won't ruin the surprise of whom.Yes, there was an inappropriate flatulence joke in the movie, but all in all that was the only concession to bathroom humor in an otherwise classy family comedy. Yes, there were plot holes, some of which were large enough to drive a sleigh through, but after eight years and five writers, the end product was satisfactory.On its own: 10/10 for combined effort and execution. As a sequel: 8/10. Good character continuity, interesting new spin. I'm happy to say I didn't spot large amounts of rehash.Recommended for: families with small children and college students old enough to remember the first "Clause" and just need to de-stress around midterms or finals.

This was one of those summer movies that you did not expect much from. It seemed like a rather inane plot and simple story. However, few could have imagined the truly great performances handed in, primarily by the bad guys here. Jared Leto is incredible as the weasel in charge of this criminal operation. Moreover, Dwight Yoakum, who is always great, turns in both a funny and evil performance. Couple this with the performances of Jodi Foster and Forrest Whittaker, and you got a movie. One does not need a great great story, when you have big time talent to tell it. The story involves a heist of an old house occupied by Foster and her daughter. However, what the bad guys need, is locked in the safest room in the house, which also happens to be where Foster and her daughter are locked in. That is the premise, you will have to watch the rest.

The film reminded me of the 1944 classic "Double Indemnity." Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck would have had a field day with this one. Instead, we have Ashley Judd in an average performance in a great thriller of a movie.Ms. Judd is framed for the murder of her husband, who is played quite well by Bruce Greenwood. The latter adopts a southern accent for his years in the south after he and Annabel Gish, who plays Angela Green, a private school teacher, concoct this scheme.It's office to prison for Miss Judd. Imagine her amazement when she speaks to her little boy on the phone and hears him say "Daddy," when Greenwood walks into the room.The rest of the film is devoted to Miss Judd's scheme of revenge. Tommy Lee Jones enters the film in a supporting role as a parole officer who is having trouble with the bottle. Soon paroled, but breaking it at every attempt to get to her husband, Judd and Jones are led into quite an adventure while she seeks out her husband. In the interim years, Angela dies in a supposed gas explosion in their home.The film is well paced and exciting. It's just that Ms. Judd's performance is somewhat restrained. Bring back those ladies of the Golden Screen Age time!

Ask three naughty third graders to write a script involving and drunken santa and a thieving side kick and there you have it. Make sure to give it an R rating to attract more teens. Plenty of cussing, screwing, and vomiting. No plot but who needs one? My only fear is they left it open so there might be a sequeal. At least I won't make the same mistake twice.

Million Dollar baby is in my opinion the best picture of the year. I've seen all except Finding Neverland and I would have to say that this one is the best. (Sideways a close second). Clint Eastwood shows us again why he is one of the greatest actors and directors of all time. Hilary Swank clearly deserves to be the best actress, and hopefully Freeman will get his Oscar. I'm my opinion, Eastwood deserved best picture last year for Mystic River. This year, he will get the Oscar.I don't know if you will leave the theater angry, upset, sad, or moved, but you will leave the theater feeling a little bit different after you have seen million dollar baby. Could possibly be the best boxing movie since Rocky. 10/10

Based on the best selling book by Nick Horby, this is a simple but likable comedy from the makers of American Pie, Chris and Paul Weitz. Basically, the story revolves around both rich Londoner Will Freeman (Golden Globe nominated Hugh Grant) and twelve year old Marcus (Nicholas Hoult), both with no real friends. When Will poses as a single father with a fictional son, to try and woo the attention of single mothers, who he finds very attractive, he manages to have some time with them, before letting them go not long later. As a result of one of his single mother relationships, he meets Marcus, who at first don't really see eye to eye, but after a few more encounters become good friends, teaching each other how to be cool, and growing up. Marcus's mother Fiona (BAFTA nominated Toni Collette) is a big problem in his life, being suicidal, and she does not pay enough attention to him as she could, but after Marcus, with some help from Will, go to the local school talent show, everything is settled and both the boys have each other and others for a happy ending. Also starring Rachel Weisz as Rachel, Isabel Brook as Angie, Sharon Small as Christine, Victoria Smurfit as Suzie and Nicholas Hutchison as John. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Writing, Adapated Screenplay, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Adapted Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. Very good!

Yep, it's better than Armageddon, Bad Boys II and Pearl Harbor, which isn't very hard to pull off. It's no where near the level of The Rock. The first half of the movie is a fascinating look at a future utopia where people are kept safe from a post apocalyptic world where one island is a safe place for the survivors, of whom if you win a lottery you'll get to leave the utopia to live on the island. However, all is not well in this place and some people are getting suspicious about what this place is, why new people keeping showing up after an apocalypse and so on.Eventually two of them escape and find out that there was no apocalypse and they are clones of rich people who will use them as an organ bank when the time comes for it. That's when things go wrong for this movie. After this it's just a big loud action flick that doesn't do anything new or creative. Basically anyone who's seen enough movies can guess what will happen after this point.I liked the way it takes place about 15 years from now and looks like it could be happening at that point. The technology of the future looks realistic for that far in to the future. So that's one good point.At the end of the movie, all the clones escape and the bad guy dies. I was disappointed the movie ended at that point. I think it would be interesting to see how the clones who lived in an isolated environment for all their lives would react to the real world. I'd like to see how the rest of the world deals with and reacts to the fact that all the rich and famous people have exact clones running around. I just think that this specific story had more interesting topics that could have been covered but weren't.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Casey Mulligan look terrific, but DiCaprio's performance is a bit puppet-like, though this may be Baz Luhrmann's direction, and Mulligan doesn't quite capture the shallow brittleness of Daisy the way Farrow did. Tobey Maguire is outstandingly good as Daisy's narrator cousin Nick, a character who may have inspired L.P Hartley to create the boy Leo in THE GO-BETWEEN. The big fault with the movie - and it will always be there - is Scott Fitzgerald's fault: not enough happens. Will Daisy and Gatsby recapture their lost love? What's the truth about his past? These are the only two elements to the story. An already slim plot gets thinner with such an extended adaptation. And repeated overcrowded parties and long tracking shots soon begin to look like the padding is coming out of this overstuffed armchair of a movie.It's visually glorious (and I only saw the 2D version) but it's a bit like a sweet with a hollow centre.

The Following Review may contain spoilers for City of GodI saw on IMDb before I watched it, that City of God was number 41 on the all time greatest movies ever made list, but after watching it for a class assignment I can honestly say that it definitely deserves to be number 41, if not higher. Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund do a great job at capturing the lives of the people who live in the City of God, a dangerous neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro. None of the film is in English, but that did not stop me from being on the edge of my seat and enjoying the cinematography and acting that took place. City of God mainly focuses on two characters; those being Rocket, and Li'l Dice (A.k.a. Li'l Ze) growing up in the dangerous neighborhood, infested by gang violence, drugs, and poverty. Both of these main characters are driving for different outcomes in their lives; Rocket wants to get out of the town as soon as he possibly can, while Li'l Dice gets caught up in the wrong crowd and wants to own the city by leading the drug business. The actors in this film are not very popular actors that we know, but they bring such a great impact to the film, how some have an unfathomable lust to kill and rule, and others just want to live by the "rules" of the City of God. The uses of different camera angles help give different feelings to the audience. During violent scenes it has the hand-held angles to make it seem very dangerous, realistic, and unsuspecting, while the use of structured shots help give it a documentary feel to inform the audience that this is what is going on in the small neighborhood of Brazil. City of God was a fantastic watch that truly shows how some parts of the world have to live in this demeanor. The plot, action, drama, and structure of the film are such a great combination to explain the struggle of living in the City of God.

I was not happy with how they aged Al Pacino for this role. But that is the besides the point, it doesn't take away from what is a very good ending to the trilogy.Although some complain that Coppola's direction is vastly contrasted to the previous two movies, I didn't feel that affected the movie in a negative way.Michael Corleone is now old and his business is finally 'legitimate'. However, there are obstacles in his path to purging himself of past sins, and his confession to a priest about how he murdered his brother is highly symbolic of how that one act has haunted him till now and is something he will always regret.I loved how this movie picked up from the devastating murder of Fredo in part II and emphasized how Michael wishes to seek repentance for this act. However, a negative in this movie is the character of Kay and how she reappears in Michael's life and he seems eager to seek her forgiveness and profess how he has always cared for her. What I found even more incredulous was how she claims she has always loved him! After her murder of his child in part II I found this not in-keeping with her character development by the end of that movie. Equally ludicrous is how Michael has changed towards her and seeks her approval even now. It is sad because it shows us how alone he really is yet it isn't in-keeping with the Michael we saw in part II.The devastatingly poignant ending where Mary is shot is the final bullet to Michael's heart and he dies alone. I wasn't happy with this ending but somehow I suppose it fit. Mary couldn't have the love of the cousin who loved her back because his destiny is to take over from Michael as the new Don. So her death seems the only solution as we know she will not be able to live without her cousin reciprocating her love. Vincent, her cousin, is the bastard child of Michael's elder brother Sonny and somehow I doubt his ability to succeed Michael successfully. But we will never know how that turned out...All in all a must-see for die-hard Godfather fans. This movie includes flashbacks to Fredo's murder and Michael's first marriage. Yet the real story here is about Michael's relationship with his family and in true movie-hero-villain style his downfall into a lonely broken-hearted death, in much the way as Tony Montana in Scarface ended up.

Now I know a lot of people are bashing this movie apart. Basically people are going to see this movie thinking that its following the mythology of Hercules. That's what most people were let down by,its more close the mythology but this flick is based on a comic book (I never read the comics but I know this because it was on Wikipedia,its called Hercules : The Thracian wars by Radical) The story was well paced and good, maybe goofy at sometimes but it was well put and solid.My only problems with this movie were the short run time (1hr,38 minutes) and the 3D. The runtime could have been extended so we could have more things explained in a better time frame but it had to be 98 minutes long which I thought was disappointing because I wanted to see more of the movie but I never did. I mention the 3D was bad and not too good. It was basically good at some points but not all the time and I was let down with 3D because my cousin pressured me to see it IMAX 3D the IMAX format worked well with that awesome crystal clear imagery and kickass surround sound but 3D was bad. We paid $40.00 bucks to see it in IMAX 3D besides it would be better if it was just in IMAX 2D or regular 2D. So all in all this movie is not the best but it is a good attempt from Paramount and MGM and kudos to them for that. Hell, its better than the Summit version with Kellan Lutz ewww.

The Shawshank Redemption has always been one of my favorite films to watch. I was introduced to this movie by my dad, who has always been a huge fan of the film. I didn't think at first I would have liked the movie, but I was wrong. Tim Robbins plays a character called Andy; who was sentenced to prison for committing a crime he never committed. Tim Robbins did a remarkable job of playing Andy. Andy had this attitude about him that captured the audience in a special way. He was always so calm, and although he had been put in prison for something he didn't do and, was treated horribly by some of his fellow inmates; he still remained a humble individual. He didn't let these actions of others affect his life. He knew he didn't do anything wrong. He knew what kind of a man he was, and he wanted out of prison. Morgan Freeman played "Red" a character whom Andy befriended in prison. Just like the audience watching the film, Red was always drawn to Andy. Andy always kept Red guessing of what was to come. I always enjoyed the relationship shared between Andy and Red. It's the kind of friendship you'd want with someone-even given the circumstances in which they were living. Eventually, Andy devised a plan and escaped Shawshank. Red eventually was let out of prison and went on to find Andy. This was another one of my favorite parts of the movie; not only the fact that Andy escaped from the prison in which he didn't belong but Red and him were reunited. I think in the end despite the fact that Red and Andy were prison inmates; everyone was on their side. They had never really seemed like they belonged in prison. They seemed like they were good people. Above all I believed after so long some people just learn their lesson and deserve to be sent home. This film is truly amazing and never gets old for me. There will never be another one quite like it.

Oh my dear Lord what A steaming pile of s&#t. The is the worst edited movie ever. Pennywise is funny not even scary by the slightest. It reminded me of the goonies only less scary. Please stay at home save your money and time. The cgi in this movie is insane it is of such a terrible standard that the guys that made drag me to hell have received redemption now.

Spiderman 3 was a triumph of the cinema. I thought the movie was a thrill ride from start to finish. Something was always going on Green Goblin, Sandman, and Venom all figuring into the mix. The relationship between Peter and Harry was torturous to watch kind of like a car wreck. The ending was a testament to friendship and the trials of life. The casting was exceptional. Adding Bryce Dallas Howard, Thomas Church, and Topher Grace created an all star atmosphere. Every scene was a delight to see truly talented professional actors/actresses at their best. I would implore anyone who likes action movies to not miss this one..

Despite all the money spent ($204 million) and the hype, Superman Returns, is unfortunately a big disappointment. The special effects are spectacular: Superman looks great flying around, better than we have ever seen him before (although I'm not sure about changing the colors of his suit). Too bad the plot and the characters suffer.The evil genius Lex Luther is downgraded to a mere con-artist who's diabolical scheme is, once you think about it, stupid and pointless. Despite having proved himself to be a supremely evil mastermind, Lex is out and free in the world (the explanation for how this occurs is, to put it lightly, lame). More attention is payed to Lois Lane and her life in this movie then ever before, yet I never grew close to Lois' character. She comes across as very 2 dimensional, essentially a flat character. There should be a massive struggle going on for Lois, but we're treated only to rare glimpses of this internal angst.As for Superman... well unfortunately the director and writers decided to focus largely on the first two Superman movies. Brandon Routh brings little to the Superman character that is different from what Christopher Reeves brought. Herein lies the mistake. Reeves was innovative in his approach to the role, especially what he did with "Clark," (the slumped shoulders, bumbling and clumsy manner). Routhe has admitted he greatly admires what Reeves did with the character, and its obvious to viewers that both Routhe and Singer (director) are doing their best to emulate Reeves' portrayal. The final product is just that, an attempt to copy Reeves that ultimately leaves you only wanting the original. Routhe's decision to change little is, however, not the worst blow to the Superman character.In "Superman Returns," Singer and the writers make the decision to focus on one of the worst parts of the original Superman movies---Superman's decision to sleep with Lois and then erase her memory afterwards. This kind of action is extremely out of character for Superman and never should have been done in the first place (I blame lazy writers). I mean, you can't just sleep with someone you're in love with and who's in love with you, and then just erase their memory afterwards without their knowledge or consent. That's just un-Supermanesque and should have been ignored in the later movies. Instead Singer and co decide to build on this week storyline. What we get in "Superman Returns" is a Superman character who acts very... normal (even petty)in his ongoing relationship with Lois.The end result of the director's over-focus on the original Superman movies is that there is little of anything that is new in this movie. Five movies later and Superman is still fighting Lex Luther... a man you would think the world authorities would be able to put away forever without Superman's help. Batman not only takes out criminals of the same magnitude as Superman does, but he does so with finality. It's obviously time for a new villain for Superman to face, but Singer offers up only a repeat of the past. Bottom line: don't expect anything new or original.

Too many reviewers have Rocky on the brain. Fact is, there is no shame is re-imagining a formula if it is a good formula to start with. Fact is, Hollywood does not make enough of these kinds of films to start with, usually letting the B-producers fill the gap with second rate product starring ex UFC stars. A delight to find an A-List production!Notes: 1. Gyllenhaal is being mocked as Oscar-worthy. The real test is whether this performance will impact viewers 20 or 30 years from now. I think it will. I think this is the performance he has been waiting his whole life to give.2. McAdams -- about as far from TRUE DETECTIVE as the earth is from the moon -- does not get proper credit for her death scene. It could be the best death scene in the history of film.4. Supporting cast to die for. Whittaker doesn't know how to give a performance that is less than perfect, and Oona Laurence not only looks like McAdams (props to the casting director) but steals every scene she is in.I gave it a 9. It could be a 10.

12 Years a Slave, the new film by British director Steve McQueen is the latest in a series of filmic treatment of slavery, one of the darkest chapters in US history. After Quentin Tarantino's revenge tale Django Unchained and Lincoln, Steven Spielberg's political drama about slavery's official abolition, it leads us into the heart of human degradation and cruelty, and to the core of an American trauma that has not been properly dealt with in the past, that still lingers in all the unsolved issues plaguing US society today. Perhaps now the time is right. For the first time in history, a black man is holding the highest office in the land, living proof how far the country has come. A look at America today, however, shoes the long distance still ahead and maybe a film like 12 Years a Slave can serve as a reminder that the wounds that the system of treating humans as things, extending the principle of property to living souls, has created have not healed.The film opens with a series of seemingly disconnected images: a group of slaves standing motionless in a field; a man and a woman turning towards each other in the night, a man in shackles. Not a word is spoken, past and present indistinguishable, a human life reduced to brief glimpses. 12 Years a Slave tells the true story of Solomon Northup, a father of two and skilled violinist, a respected member of the community of Saratoga Springs in upstate New York. He gets lured to Washington, DC, under a pretense, is kidnapped and sold as a slave to Louisiana. He first works for a relatively humane slaver before he, following a confrontation with his chief carpenter, is sold to a brutal and sadistic new "master". Only after twelve years he can, with much luck and help from his home community, regain his freedom. A rare exception that allows him to tell a story he shares with many but which most never lived to tell.In other directors' hands, 12 Years a Slave might have turned into a sentimental, pathos drenched melodrama, drowning in a heavy musical score, driven by high drama and overblown emotions. Steve McQueen, a rising star among Hollywood directors, however, tells the story in an equally poetic as well as serious, unsentimental, unsparing way, accompanied by a surprisingly unassuming score by Hans Zimmer, that remains close to the protagonist throughout, that sets out to tell his unique story and to reach the universal strictly through the individual. Chiwetel Ejiofor is Solomon a man robbed of his life, his identity, his name, even his right to call himself human. His acting is subtle, as he moves from defiance through pragmatic survival to all the deformations this de-humanization enforces on body and soul. He is no hero but a man who wants to live, one who tries to stay low, who even allows to become an instrument of suppression only not to be its target.McQueen rolls past and present into one, juxtaposes strikingly beautiful images of the Southern countryside with extreme and very graphic cruelty, continues a cynical racist song into the next scene when the seemingly kind master preaches from the bible, contrasts the everyday with the inhumane as in a long scene in which Solomon, following an interrupted hanging remains for hours dangling from the rope, his feet just touching the ground and groping to keep the body up, while in the background children play. In this world, normal life and the loss of all basic principles of humaneness are one, as are beauty and the turning of humans into objects, an upside down world in which time has stopped, an eternity of suffering in which past and present are the same because there is no future. But as much as these people are forced to play their roles, they cannot help but remain humans with their very own hopes and fears and characters and personalities. An involuntary defiance that is almost harder to bear for the oppressors as outright rebellion would be. Michael Fassbender is Ejiofor's counterpart, a sadistic slaveholder with no hint of true human feelings, yet a soul even more deformed by this unnatural economy that those of his victims. The agent of terror is no free man either, tortured by demons stronger than any whip. But there is no excuse, as haunted as he is, he remains culpable without limitation.McQueen describes without excusing. No-one gets out of this unharmed, the coming home scene in which Solomon apologizes to his wife for his appearance is starkly shocking. The film's great strength is the combination of complex and poetic storytelling and relentless honesty, making it a poem of human suffering as well as a stark and relentless portrait of what man can do to man. And he does so by telling one man's story, the tale of an individual body and soul, a flawed human being who stands for himself – and through that for millions of others.Admittedly, the film has its faults. Brad Pitt as the only good white man is unbearably bland, occasionally the film cannot avoid the trap of drifting into tear jerking territory, and even a little patronizing is not absent – after all, Solomon's freeing is the work of white men – but these are very minor flaws in what is otherwise a deeply disturbing, uncompromisingly honest depiction of humanity at its cruelest. When the academy Awards are handed out in late February, 13 Years a Slave is widely expected to be named "Best Picture". There hasn't been a more deserving winner in years.http://stagescreen.wordpress.com/

I feel very embarrassed for admitting it, but I love this movie. The dry, British humor, along with the crazed characters make for an absolute hit! I saw the movie on one of my movie channels several times, and finally went out and bought it! It is great! Perfect date movie, or even a perfect movie if you just want to sit back and enjoy a great laugh! See this movie.Beyond the great, lovable characters, Love Actually hits the deeper, poignant reference that even though the world is full of grief and despair, it is more full of Love.Great performances by Colin Firth and Hugh Grant (a pair seen often lately, Bridget Jones), unforgettable heart-felt performance by Liam Neeson, not to mention an unforgettable screen presence of Keira Knightley!I agree with the almost cliché reference on the front cover of the movie: "The ULTIMATE Romantic Comedy." If it isn't, what is?

I expected your usual "War" movie, but this one blew me out of the water. The story line kept you into the movie waiting to see what was going to happen next. The mixed blend of what he had to offer for his country, his fellow soldiers along with his wife and children was extremely good. The movie offered love, romance, adventure and action all rolled into one. Upon leaving the theater, there was a man standing there saluting the screen with tears in his eyes. There was no doubt that he too has seen what our brave young soldiers have seen and have been through. Perhaps he was in Iraq and perhaps it brought back memories? As for me personally, I truly liked the movie and found it to be something that I will remember for a long while.

Munich tells the story of 11 Isralie Athlete murdered when a hostage operation doesn't exactly go as planned. The Group of people behind it were/are known as "Black September".What the film really focuses on is everything that came after this event. In response to this a new attitude/ approach is taken it is decided by the Isrealie government that the best way to change things to fight back is to start doing some of the killing themselves. So it is decided that a team shall be put together with the intention of finding and killing the people responsible for the slaughtering of the athletes. Chosen to lead the team is Avner the son of a once war hero who has to agree to leave his life which is taken up mostly by his pregnant wife for a while and focus on the objective in hand he can not tell anyone about this and will be given four other team members in which to carry out his "work". Well what happens after all this is quite simply amazing and shown so well by Spielberg. The film shows the consequences of the attitude "fighting fire with fire" It shows how over time the men doing the revenge killing almost can't handle it and lose there eagerness to kill back. It shows how this affects you , others around you and even sometimes people who don't deserve to die. The film almost spells out that killing gets you nowhere and doesn't change nor right wrongs. What the film also does is shows that the men doing the hunting down for those responsible ultimately become the hunted in a world were information can and will be sold to whoever will pay the most. It shows how even after the mission is over Avner is affected by what has happened he is scared as he is now a man wanted and is scared for him and his family's life. This film is full of edge of the seat stuff! and is ram packed full of suspense. Even at it's long running time not for one second is this film slow and never manages to drag in anyway!With amazing performances from Bana and the other four members of the team including "Daniel Craig" this film is for anyone who just generally loves movies. It has no particular target audience and can be enjoyed by all. Everything in this film just feels so perfect the Cinematography , Performances , Action , Handling of violence and how real it feels in general!.It's one that all lovers of both drama and action movies will enjoy and makes you wonder what more Spielberg could have mastered if he had opted for more serious movies like this. 8/10

I love movies and I consider that I know a good one from a bad one.Mel Gibsom gets better with each film he is involved in.Apocalypto is a must see.I could see people might consider it blood thirsty in places but taken in context I do not remember the film for that,rather fine acting and a very good story that covers all human emotions.I really struggle to know why this film did not clean up at the academy awards.It is that good,personally I think it may have something to do with Mel getting drunk last year and mouthing off about certain people while under the influence.I presume some of those people are high up the Hollwood ladder.I have never seen a 10/10 movie by my scale.Titanic was a 9.As I say I rate Apocalypto 8/10.The movie will stand by itself and I cannot wait for Mels next film Apocalypto is like looking through a window in time hundreds of yrs ago. Maybe there is a sequel in this film.A must see....dingus49

Movies such as "The Last Emperor", "The Conformist" or "Last Tango in Paris" have remained as classics of contemporary European cinema. Although it may seem too soon to declare "The Dreamers" as a classic, it contains enough credits to assume that it will possibly stay in the mind and heart of contemporary audiences. What seems most interesting in this movie is the fact that you can tell it's a Bertolucci's movie. Through characters, situations, use of music, shots, photography and - most of all - the main thematic concerns, this movie is part of Bertolucci's universe. The story sets in Paris in the agitated days of the Cultural Revolution and talks about the intellectual and emotional relation between a couple of twins and a young American, the three of them being movie buffs. The movie reminds some other movies by Bertolucci, specially "Luna", in which he also tells a story of incest. I wouldn't recommend this movie to very sensible audiences since it is sexually explicit and too aggressive for conservative minds. Movie fans, however, will love it. There are plenty of references to great cinema classics that will drive movie goers crazy. Bertolucci's followers will be the most satisfied since it offers opportunities to relate it to his previous movies. The DVD version contains a most interesting making-off, with interviews and comments from the producer, technicians, actors and Bertolucci himself.

I don't think I'll ever quite understand mainstream tastes. This won five Oscars (including for Cate Blanchett's performance??) and was nominated for six others, including directing, best motion picture of the year, screenplay written directly for the screen and Alan Alda's performance?? That strikes me as bizarre to say the least, although perhaps not as bizarre as the fact that the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films nominated this for "Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film", or the fact that so many other awards organizations followed suit.It's not that I hated The Aviator--I do think it's worth at least one view, especially if Howard Hughes fascinates you. But although I agree that there is some decent (but not Oscar-worthy) cinematography and production design in the film, and Leonardo DiCaprio did a good job despite other factors, I had serious problems with the directing, the screenplay and most of the performances (which I partially blamed on the directing). Yes, I gave the film a seven, but a low seven, and from me, that means this was almost a "D". Or in other words, I'd almost not give director Martin Scorsese credit for this if he turned it in for a university course.The Aviator is a biopic about "eccentric" millionaire businessman and filmmaker Howard Hughes (played here by DiCaprio). He also had something of a fetish for aviation, as you could guess from the title of the film. Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan focus on 20 or 30 years of Hughes' life, beginning in the late 1920s, when he was making Hell's Angels (1930), and ending just after the infamous U.S. Senate hearings and the public demonstration of behemoth wooden plane known as the "Spruce Goose". It focuses on his dueling obsessions in the film and aviation industries, a couple of his relationships—primarily Katherine Hepburn and Ava Gardner, and his increasingly odd "quirks".Since a lot of praise is routinely heaped on The Aviator, I want to mainly focus on the flaws that I believe are present. First off, for the material presented in the film, it is far too long, clocking in at just under three hours. Much of it drags, so the first hour and a half feels more like three. Scorsese has actually had a length problem for some time now--it also seriously marred Casino (1995). He needs to hire an editor who will not kowtow to him. The majority of The Aviator consists of people standing around and talking, and they're usually talking about business. That gives it all the excitement of a 9:00 a.m. employee meeting at a company you don't really enjoy working for. Of course, there's more to the film than that--mainly the romances and the quirk exhibition--but the business meeting mode takes up an unusual amount of screen time. The only time the film becomes really engaging is during a disastrous flight that ends in Beverly Hills. Yes, that's an "action" scene, but no, I do not only like action films. Just take a look at my other reviews and ratings.However, a more serious problem than the length is the combination of direction and performances. The dialogue, in particular, began to grate on my nerves. I'm not sure that the dialogue as written is bad in itself, but Scorsese directs his cast to deliver their lines with bizarre affectations (and I don't just mean characters like Hepburn who did really talk unusually), and frequently talk on top of one another (and I don't just mean the dinner scene at the Hepburn home). Bizarre affectations can work for me in many circumstances. But here, I do not get the impression that Scorsese was trying to make The Aviator surreal (despite the beautiful blue grass on the golf course), Lynchian or experimental overall. The dialogue-delivery and the performances in general tend to play with an aura of "Hey, we're making a big Hollywood film now", or, the whole affair seems affected, pretentious, and "fake". Perhaps Scorsese was shooting for awards here. Maybe he gets mainstream tastes. To my sensibilities, it seems that Scorsese and Logan were writing and directing to pander to what a particular type of person wants to hear, rather than writing and directing towards what they think is right/believe in artistically.So I found most of the performances more bothersome than pleasurable, including Alan Alda and Alec Baldwin, both of whom I normally enjoy. Cate Blanchett was particularly grating to me. I've liked her in a couple films, but she's batting closer to .133 for me so far. DiCaprio gave the sole performance--though not Oscar-worthy--that sometimes worked for me. Of course, that's important, since he's the focus; otherwise, The Aviator could have received nowhere near a 7.There are also serious problems with the "argument" Scorsese and Logan seem to be making about Hughes. They seem to place some of the blame for his quirks on his mother, but this is very poorly developed. More seriously, there is a very odd absence of showing why Hughes was as successful as he was--and he was successful, and not just due to an inheritance. According to this film, Hughes was primarily a man who made a number of insane and increasingly financially disastrous decisions while others tried to tolerate him. Even odder, there's a sense of Hughes just "going along for the ride". We're not really shown any successful business dealings, relationships, or positive actions. Even considering the film purely as fiction, the character doesn't work for what's supposedly happening "around" the character.Sure, Hughes' quirks are fun to explore, and this and other aspects do occasionally make the film engrossing--occasionally, you forget to glance at the clock. But there are far more serious problems than assets here, and The Aviator is definitely not worth the inflated accolades it has received.

"A River Runs Through It," like the Norman Maclean memoir on which it is based, is an elegy in which a man's fly fishing technique stands in for his soul. Although nominally set in rural Montana in the early 20th century, in fact the film goes back much further. The opening and closing passages of the memoir, quoted in voice-over in the film, make clear that director Robert Redford, like Maclean, is dealing with Adam's fall from grace, the quite different ways in which two sons of a stern Presbyterian preacher seek redemption -- one by cleaving to the teachings and expectations of his father, the other by rejecting convention and striking out on his own -- and the impossibility of knowing whether their different fates were predestined or might somehow have been avoided. This is not the usual stuff of cinema, which normally depends on standard plot devices to push the action forward -- if truth be told, Maclean's poetic and sometimes funny narrative probably succeeds better on its own terms -- but Redford makes a few small changes, takes lots of chances, and comes very close to duplicating Maclean's substance and tone. The acting is first-rate, the cinematography won awards, and the music should have. The only flaw, in my view, is that the ending of the film comes as a surprise, and thus lacks the tragic inevitability of the memoir, but don't let that stop you from seeing it. Nine stars.

Now this is a movie that everyone should see: The Mask.Stanley Ipkiss (played by the young and mighty Jim Carrey) has never had too much luck in his life. He works in a bank, has trouble talking to girls and watches cartoons before going to sleep. All this changes one night when he finds an ancient mask in the sea. From curiosity, he tries on the mask and BAM! one of the greatest monsters from the 90's is born. Now with a green face and a goofy yellow suit, the mask heads out to the city to live the good life. His pockets loaded with ridiculous gadgets and his mouth filled with cheesy one liners.The Mask is a lot of fun to watch. Rarely does a movie take you to such an unusual situation and makes it relateable to the audience. Jim Carrey executes his role with comedic perfection. His voice, movements and expressions almost make it seem as if he had once upon a time been a maniac with the green face. The other actress that needs a mentioning is Cameron Diaz, making her debut as one of the sexiest women of all time. She brings all the boys out their seats and makes all the women jealous. Don't be surprise if you keep coming back to see this movie just because of her.I recommend this movie to those who are looking for a fun time. It's a great movie and it will bring out the Cuban Pete we all hide inside our soul.9 SMOKING stars out of 10

After all the hype, I expected more. It is way too long for a simple story. It is too derivative with steals from Godfather, Good Fellas and number of other gangster films. The revelation to me was a great performance by Crowe, probably his best. He played it perfectly--an underplayed restrained but in the end a magnificent job of acting. I never realized how really good he is as an actor, He plumbed the depth of this good cop and yet made him all too human, showing his angst as well as his moral certitude. For once he did not rely on his persona and charm. Acting students should see him if they want to see a big star show how really good a star can be!! I admire him for stopping to give such a great acting job in the middle of a star-laden career. Denzel also gave a wonderful performance. Even though he relied on his superb electric personality. Any film he is in is usually worth watching. He is at the top of his craft, here going from suave polished kingpin to savage killer.But the rest of the cast except for Brolin is wasted. He gives another amazing acting job and shows he is a top professional. The film was poorly edited and Zalians script was Disjointed and character development other than the leads was non-existing. It is surely worth seeing for the two stars work but because of the poor writing and editing it doesn't rise to the level of the great crime films.

Great film i thought that it was better than 1 and 2 can't wait for number 4 the clip with magneto at the end with the chess piece may be misleading,if you jumped to the same conclusion that i jumped to all may not be as it seems there is a clip after the credits which could also be the reason why the chess piece moves slightly.I think that the actor who played Scott Summers,A.K.A Cyclops should not have quit X-Men for Superman he wont make as much money and it wont be a better film.Great acting from Hugh Jackman A.K.A Wolverine, I thought he pulled of his role brilliantly.And Famke Jansen A.K.A Jean Grey pulled off her role well.I also thought the newcomers were good as well Kitty Pride and Beast but why wasn't nightcrawler in it? REMEMBER TO STAY TILL AFTER THE CREDITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I went to see this curious combination of art-house sex romp and period mystery, it was playing on one screen in an 18 screen multiplex theater right next to "Milk." What irony.I first took notice of "Milk," when I read that Gus Van Sant made Sean Penn and James Franco wear huge rubbery fake penises for "love" scenes and other nudity. I figured I would go see that, get the audience reaction, and see if I could keep from laughing and embarrassing myself. It's one thing to laugh out loud during Rambo IV when Stallone starts blowing apart the Burmese, but quite another to do the same in a theater (likely) full of many older, worldly gay men there to see a "serious" cinematic tribute for Harvey Milk.. After I read that all the "strap on" scenes were cut out, and that there was no honest depiction of the bath house debauchery the period was famous for, I skipped it.I went into "The Reader," without having read the book, and not knowing much about it except that it dealt with Nazis, war criminals and sex. That was enough to interest me. Shades of "The Night Porter" maybe? Not really, but the penis had definitely moved over from next door, and it didn't look fake either. Completely flaccid (absolutely necessary to avoid an instant NC-17 tag), certainly not huge, but a realistically ample "shower." It was attached to a barely 18 year old little known German actor who looked like a brown haired version of Prince William fused with a lanky Jonathan Taylor Thomas, and who partook in quite a few of those slow, extended "European" type explicit sex scenes with 30something lead actress Kate Winslet, who also showed off almost all of her body except the beav. I was the only male in a sparse audience made up entirely of middle aged, and older women. The movie was not funny, but I did laugh quietly at the thought of the dilemma this might pose for many of the gay men next door if they really knew what was going on so close by.I also laughed a bit because the other Winslet flick, "Revolutionary Road" was playing just a couple of screens on down. Here a stiffly clothed Winslet gets two of the most incompetently mechanical screws in modern film. If "The Reader" is all about sexual fantasy fulfillment for "mature" straight women, "Road's" adaptation of Richard Yates' 1962 suburban "horror" novel is an explanation for why the Stepford men in Ira Levin's later horror tale turned all their women into programmed robots. It was the only way those 30 second wonders were ever going to give them an orgasm."The Reader," beyond its relaxed Eurosex themes, is also a lame thriller. Lame only because it isn't very thrilling. The secret of the story is very easy to spot early on. The core plot involved Kate Winslet and her brief, lusty 1958 relationship with the German youth, aged 15 to 16 then, and how their lives and interactions play out through 1995. Seems that before she became the cathartic lover of an impressionable and lonely teenage boy, Winslet's character was an SS guard at Auschwitz and other camps during the War, and she is charged and convicted in 1966 of commanding a unit of female guards in 1944 that killed around 300 Jewish prisoners by burning them alive in a church (a trademark act of Holocaust brutality) during the retreat from the camps as Soviet troops advance.The decently hung German kid plays the male lead character both as a 16 year old, and as a 24 year old law student in 1966 during Winslet's trial. The 1958 scenes are lushly detailed period recreations, complete with bucolic and romantic "wandervogeling" between Winslet and her boy that vaguely evoke similar earlier scenes in "Cabaret." The scene involving the penile money shot is a lingering one where Winslet slowly bathes the youth's taut, naked body as he stands awkwardly inside a claw foot tub in her dingy flat. No, she can't scrub away her sins doing this, but it is gratuitous eye candy for a select audience, both watching it, and missing it in the theater next door.The male lead as an older man is played by Ralph Fiennes, whose persona is so radically different from that of the younger actor that it's hard to suspend disbelief and accept the two as the same person. Fiennes does his usual; he whisks about in well tailored suits and looks consistently constipated, and sexually aloof. He is more like the duds Winslet is dealing with down the hall on Revolutionary Road than the shy, eager stud she bedded years earlier.I am also a bit leery of the "good German" approach of the film. These Germans seem a bit too eager to prosecute their own kind for war crimes, but as "good" Germans will do, they justify their desire for justice with a lot of awkward, rambling philosophizing about the difference between morality and law. Just like they did years earlier when opportunists like Heidegger bastardized Nietzsche to justify acts they now admit are crimes. One thing this movie does well is it shows how it was mostly illiterate working class types, such as Winslet's character, who get what tepid justice is meted out, rather than say, a mayor, or Bundestag legislator, or some AG CEO or chairman, all of whom would likely go deliberately undiscovered and unpunished. Even at that, for someone convicted of "murdering" 300 Jews, and sentenced to life in prison, she's up for release within twenty years, and with all the tender support the state social services agencies can muster to help her readjust to life on the outside. Despite all the sex, and decent mounting of the historical periods this movie delivers, I still like "The Odessa File," and maybe "Marathon Man" better.

I don't think that this movie is worth to watch. It will spoil your time as it did with mine.because In this movie their is no such thing that we didn't see before.Kristen Stewart as we seen her before,is a showpiece item in every movie. So guys don't ruin your day or spoil your money on this. I am sure you have seen better than this movie. this movie must be made in 90's,then i think it can be blockbuster. Some people can like this but I think they all are old fashionable. Chris hemsworth is good but not best. In starting of it I was feeling that it would be worth to watch this but at last I was wrong. I couldn't find anything new in this movie.Yea sorry to mention it to earlier the only character that impressed me in this the The Evil Queen (played perfectly by Charlize Theron).She is impressive. So finally don't go for this, I am sure we all have some other better options . Good Luck...!!

OK everybody, this was a nice movie with some interesting insight and commentary on the subject. The best part was Cage's performance, as mostly everything else is ripped off from a thirty years old Italian film called "Finche' c'e' guerra c'e' speranza" (While There's War There's Hope) with Alberto Sordi. Obviously 99.9 percent of the viewing public in the US ignores it and thinks "wow, how do they come up with these ideas in Hollywood?", well, that's how, they take an old European or Asian movie and they copy every aspect of it (aside of the FX and fancy camera work) and they sell it as brand new, without giving the original any credit. Way to go Andrew Niccol, this guy has been ripping off other's ideas since Gattaca, with "Lord of war" he has outdone himself.

I've watched this video so many times ... and each time it moves me dramatically. It is a most amazing love story between a defrocked priest who found that as he reached for the stars his feet were made of clay and a scientist (Jodie Foster) who knew that her feet were made of clay but reached for the stars anyway.The casting in this movie is, perhaps, the best that I have come across. Each character so vividly and accurately portrays the role chosen ... a remarkable production meriting abundant awards and kudos.

Kubrick's swan-song is on the money...pure Kubrick through and through. The haunting use of classical music, the lighting, the cavernous sets, they all spell the mystery of the master, Stanley Kubrick. The detail is astounding. It's not hard to picture Kubrick shooting and reshooting scenes time after time, in order to capture just the right angle, just the right shadow, just the right expression. I was captivated from the start by this story which plunges the very depths of human sexuality, yet makes a strong statement for marriage and family as being the genuine answer to the more base and carnal lusts within us all. I looked at my wife at one point, and she had her hands over her ears as the piano played (you'll understand when you see it). Kubrick's use of imagery and music to torture while informing his viewer had me on the edge of my seat for the entire movie. Kubrick never insults the intelligence of his viewer. EWS is a riveting and powerful exploration of the human condition...ala A Clockwork Orange. Thanks Stanley!

Being used to the Indian movies makes you a fan of 'song & dance routine' in movies. So a musical is never surprising for us. In fact movies without nice song & dance may seem strange to many of us. For me it has been disappointing mostly, when it comes to Hollywood musicals, especially Chicago which was terrible or even Moulin Rouge. Why the hell they even speak dialogues by singing them, that's stupid (like singing & dancing around trees with changing clothes & all other ridiculous stuff is so sensible & smart, but we are used to it). Somehow the Hollywood musical doesn't seem to work much to me (The Enchanted and Music & Lyrics were nice though) but this was a clear exception.The movie looks fresh and interesting, the performances are subtle and keeps you hooked having fun while watching. That's what you expect from a musical. The storyline is well known, (hopefully... it was not well known to me though) a girl searching for her real father out of all 3 men her mom has dated earlier. She plans her marriage and invites all 3 men to figure out who is it. And the story goes through twists & turns and lots of SONGS, coming to a happy ending (sounds like bollywood).I haven't seen the Broadway show but this film is definitely captivating enough to hold the audience. It was interesting to see Mr Ex James Bond singing and dancing on musical tunes. Others looked good as well. Just one suggestion, if you enjoy the movie then don't leave theater immediately after it ends, there is a nice song and dance routine with the end credits (ABBA songs 'Dancing queen' & 'Waterloo'), so ENJOY the Hollywood's bollywoodization!!!(Read my blog as well... http://iambetterthanthebest.blogspot.com/)